George Shirley wrote:

> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
> with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
> moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
> stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that glass.
>
> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!

I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines for
DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they don't
want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be able to
use what they paid for. We still have one of the few non-digital
switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at it's very
fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone when I dial "O"

George wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>
>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>>
>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>
>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were
>> getting a good picture before.
>>
>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches
>> to the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite
>> receiver and that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.
>
> Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and can
> reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising etc is
> all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases your reach
> to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to charge
> them?

In our area I think the cable company is in bed with the local networks
and executed agreements to charge anyone else who wanted to rebroadcast
their programming. These contracts probably supersede the onset of
satellite TV availability. For instance, the cable company can broadcast
local networks in HD but the two satellite services can't. They have the
technology and they do it in other areas.

jmcquown wrote:
> "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Chemiker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>>> Dish Network.
>>>>
>>> Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a
>>> converter box
>>> to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>>
>>> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>>>
>>
>> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
>> out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
>> The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>>
>> Lou
>
>
>
> I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital. It's not like
> analog television hasn't been the norm for the last nearly 70 years. I
> can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable and satellite TV
> lobby. Who else cares about how we receive television signals?
>
> Jill

It has to do with freeing up the analog section of the air waves for use
by emergency response groups. At least that is what I read.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:37:27 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Chemiker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>>> Dish Network.
>>>>
>>> Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter box
>>> to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>>
>>> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
>> out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
>> The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>>
>> Lou
>
> i got my coupon in november and bought the box, but haven't hooked it up
> yet.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I hooked mine up to the one TV that needs to get local stations (in case
of a hurricane I like to have one over-the-air set) It's really easy. I
even managed to get our ancient VCR working on it.

Lass Chance_2 wrote:
> I have DISH network and Im very happy with it.
>
> My friend has DIRECT TV and she's very happy with it. We seem to get
> about the same basic programming and I pay a lot more, but she has a
> basic "package" while I have the "150 package" plus HBO and Cinemax. I
> think the basic package is about the same price.

No it's not. I looked at both web sites and Dish was $10 cheaper than
Direct for their "family" package which is the lowest priced package.
>
> Im not too keen on the TV cooks you listed, either....but I like Bobby
> Flay, Tyler Florence, Mario, Guy Fiere and Paula Dean. Ive learned
> quite a lot from Alton what'shisname, too.

Janet Wilder wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>
>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>>
>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>
>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were
>> getting a good picture before.
>>
>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches
>> to the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite
>> receiver and that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to control.
>
> You can get "distant networks" on Dish. There is a channel with the info.
I looked and they said no, I guess our "local networks" have put the
kabosh on that. I got the antenna for free and the two grown grandsons
are coming over soon and we will get it hooked up and see how it works.

Janet Wilder wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
>> with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
>> moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
>> stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that glass.
>>
>> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>
> I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines for
> DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they don't
> want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be able to
> use what they paid for. We still have one of the few non-digital
> switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at it's very
> fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone when I dial "O"
We got DSL many years ago when BellSouth was running the show here, AT&T
bought them out and service went downhill from there.

In article >, Arri London >
wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:

> > i got my coupon in november and bought the box, but haven't hooked it up
> > yet.

> Takes about five minutes to do! Anyone who has a coupon needs to use it
> before the expiration date. We have one to spare; got two but bought one
> new TV and one covertor box.
> Email me: arrilondon at mad.scientist.com if you want the coupon.

I suspect that the shortage of coupons has to do with a lot of people
getting them just in case, since they are free. When people find out
they don't need them, whether it's because they decided to switch or
upgrade, or just because they never needed them in the first place, they
will eventually get tossed, unused and unredeemed.

Worse yet, I suspect that many folks have converter boxes in their
basements, sitting there until the next time they clean the basement, at
which point they will be offered at garage sales for a few pennies, and
then tossed if they don't sell. Again, because people either changed
their minds, or never needed them in the first place.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>
> > "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message

> >> changeover. The whole thing is stupid to begin with.

> > I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital.
>
> You don't have to go digital, so there's no force; you can stop
> watching television. If you choose to watch television, you can
> use the technology that is in use.
>
> > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
> last nearly 70 years.
>
> Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
> steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.

I don't remember it, but when cars first hit the public roads, there was
a law that your car had to be proceeded by somebody walking, holding a
red flag. At that time, there was no concept that cars might replace
the horse.

> > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
> > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
> > television signals?
>
> Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!

And who currently provides said better signal? The cable and satellite
companies. I can see them lobbying "against" this, not for it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:

> > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
> last nearly 70 years.
>
> Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
> steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.

The government has mandated that everyone must use power steering and
brakes, and that older cars without them must be retrofitted or will no
longer be allowed on the roads? News to me.

> > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
> > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
> > television signals?
>
> Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!

It ain't about better signals. It's about selling off the bandwidth for
money.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:51:26p, Janet Wilder told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 05:49:12a, George Shirley told us...
>>
>>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with their
>>>> web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>>
>>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the satellite.
>>> The picture is very much more clear and defined than the one from
>>> DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we were
>>> getting a good picture before.
>>>
>>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing with
>>> the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that attaches
>>> to the dish and pipes the local channels through the satellite
>>> receiver and that puts them on the guide and makes it easier to
>>> control.
>>>
>>
>> I'm much happier with cable in our area. Everything is fiber optic
>> right up to the cable box. Picture is much clearer and more consistent
>> than any satellite I've seen locally, and it's cheaper.
>>
>
> Not all of us live in areas served by cable. We don't have any choice
> but satellite or over-the-air
>

I understand, Janet, but given the choice I would almost always choose
cable, especially the quality that I presently have. If the cable quality
was poor, then I might choose satellite.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 6hrs 36mins
************************************************** **********************
People who are late are often happier than those who have to wait
for them. --Chinese Fortune Cookie
************************************************** **********************

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...

> George Shirley wrote:
>
>> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
>> with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
>> moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
>> stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that glass.
>>
>> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>
> I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines for
> DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they don't
> want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be able to
> use what they paid for. We still have one of the few non-digital
> switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at it's very
> fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone when I dial
"O"
>

Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options for
Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the same
provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the speed
and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service through Cox is
equal to the network at my office. When I work from home and connect to
the network at work through a VPN connection, I can't even tell that I'm
not sitting at my desk at the office. Our digital phone service, also
through Cox, is superior to any that I've ever had.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 6hrs 35mins
************************************************** **********************
A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:51:26p, Janet Wilder told us...

> > Not all of us live in areas served by cable. We don't have any
> > choice but satellite or over-the-air
> >
>
> I understand, Janet, but given the choice I would almost always
> choose cable, especially the quality that I presently have. If the
> cable quality was poor, then I might choose satellite.

I'm looking into the latest wrinkle, AT&T's Uverse. TV over broadband,
essentially.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>
>>> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
>>> with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
>>> moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
>>> stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that glass.
>>>
>>> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>> I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines for
>> DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they don't
>> want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be able to
>> use what they paid for. We still have one of the few non-digital
>> switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at it's very
>> fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone when I dial
> "O"
>
> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options for
> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the same
> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the speed
> and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service through Cox is
> equal to the network at my office. When I work from home and connect to
> the network at work through a VPN connection, I can't even tell that I'm
> not sitting at my desk at the office. Our digital phone service, also
> through Cox, is superior to any that I've ever had.
>
Most likely Cox is transmitting both cable and phone over a fiber optic
network in your area. With the copper and steel cables we still have
here the cable internet service through SuddenLink is not much faster
than my 780 DSL. when I was still working from a home office I had DSL
at 6 mb and it soared. Don't need to be fast anymore.

Default User wrote:
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:51:26p, Janet Wilder told us...
>
>>> Not all of us live in areas served by cable. We don't have any
>>> choice but satellite or over-the-air
>>>
>> I understand, Janet, but given the choice I would almost always
>> choose cable, especially the quality that I presently have. If the
>> cable quality was poor, then I might choose satellite.
>
> I'm looking into the latest wrinkle, AT&T's Uverse. TV over broadband,
> essentially.
>
>
>
>
> Brian
>
According to ATT not available in my area. It's no wonder Louisiana is
backward in so many ways. It's a cabal of the big firms. Yeah, that's
the ticket.

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
>
> > > i got my coupon in november and bought the box, but haven't hooked it up
> > > yet.
>
> > Takes about five minutes to do! Anyone who has a coupon needs to use it
> > before the expiration date. We have one to spare; got two but bought one
> > new TV and one covertor box.
> > Email me: arrilondon at mad.scientist.com if you want the coupon.
>
> I suspect that the shortage of coupons has to do with a lot of people
> getting them just in case, since they are free. When people find out
> they don't need them, whether it's because they decided to switch or
> upgrade, or just because they never needed them in the first place, they
> will eventually get tossed, unused and unredeemed.

There's one going for free No takers so far. It expires beginning of
Feb 2009.




>
> Worse yet, I suspect that many folks have converter boxes in their
> basements, sitting there until the next time they clean the basement, at
> which point they will be offered at garage sales for a few pennies, and
> then tossed if they don't sell. Again, because people either changed
> their minds, or never needed them in the first place.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

George Shirley wrote:
> Janet Wilder wrote:
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>> Harry Buskin wrote:
>>>>> I don't know how to make this any easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I have satellite. I will stay with satellite.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. My local channels are provided with my sat. subscription.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. I am NOT concerned with the technical details of
>>>>> the digital transition.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. I want to know which (DirectTV or DishNetwork) is
>>>>> better in terms of food programming.
>>>>
>>>> They both carry pretty much the same. See my previous post with
>>>> their web sites. They have their programming on their web sites.
>>>>
>>>> Dish, IMO, has better technology and better support.
>>> We just switched to Dish yesterday, from DirecTV, and I have to agree
>>> with Janet's answer. I am very impressed with Dish and we had DirecTV
>>> for eleven years. Getting better, stronger, signal from the
>>> satellite. The picture is very much more clear and defined than the
>>> one from DirecTV. So much so it amazed us because we had thought we
>>> were getting a good picture before.
>>>
>>> No local channels for us because the local stations are disputing
>>> with the satellite providers over cost. I bought an antenna that
>>> attaches to the dish and pipes the local channels through the
>>> satellite receiver and that puts them on the guide and makes it
>>> easier to control.
>>
>> You can get "distant networks" on Dish. There is a channel with the info.
> I looked and they said no, I guess our "local networks" have put the
> kabosh on that. I got the antenna for free and the two grown grandsons
> are coming over soon and we will get it hooked up and see how it works.

You have to get a waiver from each TV station in order for Dish to
provide "distant networks". They won't do that even if you are in their
service area and can't receive their signals. My buddy fought with them
for years. He lives next to a small mountain that is between his house
and the transmitters. He could likely get signal if he erected a
tethered balloon and some sort of repeater. They flatly refused to issue
waivers because "Smithville" is part of their service area.

jmcquown wrote:
> "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Chemiker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>>> Dish Network.
>>>>
>>> Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a
>>> converter box
>>> to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>>
>>> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>>>
>>
>> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
>> out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
>> The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>>
>> Lou
>
>
>
> I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital. It's not like
> analog television hasn't been the norm for the last nearly 70 years. I
> can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable and satellite TV
> lobby. Who else cares about how we receive television signals?
>
> Jill

The cable and satellite folks were strongly lobbying against this
because if some full featured clever wireless system is devised that
could use the newly available spectrum it could destroy them.

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 05:34:57p, George Shirley told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
>>
>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>
>>>> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
>>>> with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
>>>> moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
>>>> stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that
glass.
>>>>
>>>> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>>> I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines
for
>>> DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they don't
>>> want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be able to
>>> use what they paid for. We still have one of the few non-digital
>>> switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at it's very
>>> fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone when I dial
>> "O"
>>
>> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options for
>> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the same
>> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the
speed
>> and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service through Cox
is
>> equal to the network at my office. When I work from home and connect to
>> the network at work through a VPN connection, I can't even tell that I'm
>> not sitting at my desk at the office. Our digital phone service, also
>> through Cox, is superior to any that I've ever had.
>>
> Most likely Cox is transmitting both cable and phone over a fiber optic
> network in your area. With the copper and steel cables we still have
> here the cable internet service through SuddenLink is not much faster
> than my 780 DSL. when I was still working from a home office I had DSL
> at 6 mb and it soared. Don't need to be fast anymore.
>

You are correct. Not only is the network in my area entirely fiber optic,
but I have fiber optic from the stantion at the street into and throughout
the house for all cable, broadband, and phone connections. We lucked out.
The conversion to fiber optic was done throughout our area 1 month before
we moved into our house.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 5hrs 43mins
************************************************** **********************
Getting the truth from Clinton is like nailing Jello
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
>
> > George Shirley wrote:
> >
> >> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago along
> >> with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms. Advantage to
> >> moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get the latest
> >> stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing all that glass.
> >>
> >> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
> >
> > I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines for
> > DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they don't
> > want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be able to
> > use what they paid for. We still have one of the few non-digital
> > switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at it's very
> > fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone when I dial
> "O"
> >
>
> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options for
> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the same
> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the speed
> and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service through Cox is
> equal to the network at my office. When I work from home and connect to
> the network at work through a VPN connection, I can't even tell that I'm
> not sitting at my desk at the office. Our digital phone service, also
> through Cox, is superior to any that I've ever had.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright


We've got (Qwest) slow dialup too. Any upgrade would cost a lot for us.

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 06:45:52p, Arri London told us...

>
>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
>>
>> > George Shirley wrote:
>> >
>> >> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago
>> >> along with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms.
>> >> Advantage to moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get
>> >> the latest stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing
>> >> all that glass.
>> >>
>> >> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>> >
>> > I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines
>> > for DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they
>> > don't want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be
>> > able to use what they paid for. We still have one of the few
>> > non-digital switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at
>> > it's very fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone
>> > when I dial
>> "O"
>> >
>>
>> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options for
>> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the same
>> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the
>> speed and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service
>> through Cox is equal to the network at my office. When I work from
>> home and connect to the network at work through a VPN connection, I
>> can't even tell that I'm not sitting at my desk at the office. Our
>> digital phone service, also through Cox, is superior to any that I've
>> ever had.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
>
> We've got (Qwest) slow dialup too. Any upgrade would cost a lot for us.
>

Our Cox bundle for cable, broadband, and phone is $99/mo plus taxes.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 5hrs
************************************************** **********************
Cats are an alarm clock and are obligated to wake the humans.
************************************************** **********************

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 06:36:15p, Michelle Steiner told us...

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options
>> for Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from
>> the same provider, Qwest, as was our phone service.
>
> I'm in a subdivision that was started in 1999 and built out in 2002;
> Qwest still doesn't have DSL here.
>

Good grief!

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 4hrs 54mins
************************************************** **********************
Mental floss prevents truth decay.
************************************************** **********************

On Thu 08 Jan 2009 06:39:11p, Michelle Steiner told us...

> In article 0>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> I understand, Janet, but given the choice I would almost always
>> choose cable, especially the quality that I presently have. If the
>> cable quality was poor, then I might choose satellite.
>
> I had Cox cable when I was living in an apartment while my house was
> being built; I opted for satellite when we moved into the house.
>

Curious... Why did you choose satellite over Cox?

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Thursday, 01(I)/08(VIII)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 3dys 4hrs 53mins
************************************************** **********************
Outrageous! Does your cat put YOU out at night?
************************************************** **********************

George wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Chemiker" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>>>> Dish Network.
>>>>>
>>>> Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a
>>>> converter box
>>>> to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
>>> out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
>>> The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital. It's not like
>> analog television hasn't been the norm for the last nearly 70 years.
>> I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable and satellite TV
>> lobby. Who else cares about how we receive television signals?
>>
>> Jill
>
> The cable and satellite folks were strongly lobbying against this
> because if some full featured clever wireless system is devised that
> could use the newly available spectrum it could destroy them.
And with all the young geeks wandering around out there it won't be long
either.

Default User wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
>> last nearly 70 years.
>>
>> Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
>> steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.
>
> The government has mandated that everyone must use power
> steering and brakes, and that older cars without them must be
> retrofitted or will no longer be allowed on the roads? News to
> me.
>
>> > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
>> > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
>> > television signals?
>>
>> Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!
>
> It ain't about better signals. It's about selling off the
> bandwidth for money.

For the user, it's about better sigs. Now, think back -- is this
a discussion between users or between broadcasters?

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>
> > "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Chemiker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> >>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> >>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> >>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> >>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> >>>> Dish Network.
> >>>>
> >>>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a
> >>>converter box
> >>>to convert your Analog to Digital.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...to-give-money-
> for-
> >>>converting-your-analog-tv/
> >>
> >> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has
> >> run out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the
> >> changeover. The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
> >>
> >> Lou
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital.
>
> You don't have to go digital, so there's no force; you can stop
> watching television. If you choose to watch television, you can
> use the technology that is in use.
>
> > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
> last nearly 70 years.
>
> Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
> steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.
>
> > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
> > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
> > television signals?
>
> Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!


The present NTSC standard was established IIRC in August of 1941. A TV from
that era (and there were a few around) would work today okay in receiving
broadcasts, as would a tube - type set from today work okay back in 1941...

Our color broadcast standard (the RCA electronic system was adopted in the
early 50's, US color broadcasting began in late 1954... the first color sets
were a thousand bux, equivalent to over 7K in today's money) is inferior to
the PAL and SECAM European color broadcast standards that they adopted in
the late 60's...heck, even the early European b/w TV broadcast standards
were better than ours.

So the US TV has lagged technologically for a long time, best to start anew.
We badly lag in cellphone and broadband so at least we'll have somewhat
decent TV quality...

Lemme tell ya, I pooh - poohed the whole digital TV thang until recently,
then a friend bought a new 42" Sony - yowzah! And a Blu-Ray DVD looks
incredible on HDTV, too...I'm hooked! The new TV technologies are so
superior to the old that there's not even any comparison, digital blows
analog awaaaaay...it's like comparing 78's to CD's


"Flat television sets that you can HANG on the WALL!" are one of the few
futuristic Jetson - type things that has eventually come to
fruition...atomic cars and vacation trips to the moon and food pills we can
do without. Flat - screen HDTV's are one of the few things that someone
from 50 years ago transported to today might truly be enthralled by...


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> "Flat television sets that you can HANG on the WALL!" are one of the
> few futuristic Jetson - type things that has eventually come to
> fruition...atomic cars and vacation trips to the moon and food pills
> we can do without. Flat - screen HDTV's are one of the few things
> that someone from 50 years ago transported to today might truly be
> enthralled by...

Just like those old clunky monitors hogged my desk compared
to the flat ones these days, I don't need a new tv but I'll be
replacing mine in a couple three months just to have one that
doesn't take up so much room.

nancy

Harry Buskin wrote:
> FInally, a sensible answer.
>
> You see the problem. I have Dish, I don't have
> Direct.
>
> DIsh has FoodTV and a few extras.
>
> DIrect has (What?).
>
> I know what channels are offered. As you say, that is
> available from the websites.
>
> (I exaggerate here...) Does the Polish channel have
> food shows? DIsh has CNBC but not FoxBusiness.
> DIsh has FoodTV, but what does DIrect have that
> might not be obvious?
>
> I'm beginning to think there might be no significant difference
> and I might as well stay where I am.
>
> And watch Robin Miller.
>
> Well, back the the kitchen.
>
> Harry

DirecTV has Food Network, Fine Living, BBC, Fox, PBS and many others that
have cooking programs. They seem to be almost on everything now.

--

Joe Cilinceon

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:02:41 -0600, Janet Wilder wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:37:27 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Chemiker" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
>>>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
>>>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
>>>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
>>>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
>>>>> Dish Network.
>>>>>
>>>> Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a converter box
>>>> to convert your Analog to Digital.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/
>>> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has run
>>> out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the changeover.
>>> The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>> i got my coupon in november and bought the box, but haven't hooked it up
>> yet.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I hooked mine up to the one TV that needs to get local stations (in case
> of a hurricane I like to have one over-the-air set) It's really easy. I
> even managed to get our ancient VCR working on it.

i don't foresee any difficulty.

your pal,
blake

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:
>
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >
> >> jmcquown wrote:
> >
> >> > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
> >> last nearly 70 years.
> >>
> >> Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
> >> steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.
> >
> > The government has mandated that everyone must use power
> > steering and brakes, and that older cars without them must be
> > retrofitted or will no longer be allowed on the roads? News to
> > me.
> >
> >> > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
> >> > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
> >> > television signals?
> >>
> >> Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!
> >
> > It ain't about better signals. It's about selling off the
> > bandwidth for money.
>
> For the user, it's about better sigs.

For the most, no it's not. People think it is, but for many it will
make no difference. If you have clear reception now, digital will be
transparent, other than having to use a separate box and control if you
have an older TV. This isn't HDTV. For those with marginal reception,
they might lose reception altoghether, or have badly pixelated
reception. Digital ain't magic.

If digital is so much better, the government would not need to mandate
it. It would happen. Just as power steering and brakes have pretty much
supplanted manual.

> Now, think back -- is this
> a discussion between users or between broadcasters?

I'm baffled as to how this is an answer to my post. Again, you are
comparing a voluntary and non-required change in technology to a
government-mandated switch that invalidates the current technology.

So, how was your analogy applicable to the discussion?




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

DISH definitely has the Food Network and I THINK it goes with even their
most basic package.

They also have the new FLN (Fine Living Netowrk) which also has Emeril
and occassional other cooking shows.

I expect DIRECT TV has the FN, too.

One thing I very much appreciate about DISH is, when I call for tecnical
help, the technician is always in America, not Calcutta. Nothing against
Calcutta or the Indian people, mind you---I just have a hard time
understanding the accent.

Direct TV may also have it's tech support in the USA, but I dont know.
Once I got a "cold call" FROM Direct TV, from an Indian woman who
promised me that if I changed from DISH to Direct TV they would meet my
present package AND save me some fifty bucks a month. This sounded
worthwhile, so I asked several times if I was hearing correctly. She
assured me that I was.

What turned out to be the truth was, YES Direct was willing to meet my
programming and cost me fifty less for THREE MONTHS...at which time my
monthly payment would jump....actually be six bucks MORE than I was
already paying DISH. I dicovered this by calling the main Direct TV
number and asking whether the Indian lady was correct.

That the lady in Calcutta LIED, outright, to get her commision (at my
expense) was a ****er I wont forget. IF I had gone to the trouble of
switching, THEN found out three monhs later I was paying MORE...I'd have
been OUTRAGED.



Lass

On Fri 09 Jan 2009 11:32:27a, Michelle Steiner told us...

> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> > I had Cox cable when I was living in an apartment while my house
>> > was being built; I opted for satellite when we moved into the
>> > house.
>>
>> Curious... Why did you choose satellite over Cox?
>
> For one thing, it was less expensive; for another, Cox did not offer a
> DVR at the time. For a third, the customer support I received from Cox
> at the apartment left a lot to be desired.
>

Fair enough. When I added up the cost of satellite, broadband over cable,
and phone service, the total was more than my Cox bundle. I had no
previous experience with Cox, but have had good luck with their customer
support (so far).

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Friday, 01(I)/09(IX)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 2dys 12hrs 17mins
************************************************** **********************
Question Authority -- and the authorities will question you.
************************************************** **********************

Lass Chance_2 wrote:
> DISH definitely has the Food Network and I THINK it goes with even their
> most basic package.
>
> They also have the new FLN (Fine Living Netowrk) which also has Emeril
> and occassional other cooking shows.
FLN has been around a while, it is a subsidiary of Food Network. The
Emeril shows on FLN are reruns from FN.
>
> I expect DIRECT TV has the FN, too.
Yes.
>
> One thing I very much appreciate about DISH is, when I call for tecnical
> help, the technician is always in America, not Calcutta. Nothing against
> Calcutta or the Indian people, mind you---I just have a hard time
> understanding the accent.
>
> Direct TV may also have it's tech support in the USA, but I dont know.
> Once I got a "cold call" FROM Direct TV, from an Indian woman who
> promised me that if I changed from DISH to Direct TV they would meet my
> present package AND save me some fifty bucks a month. This sounded
> worthwhile, so I asked several times if I was hearing correctly. She
> assured me that I was.
My experience with DirecTV is that their tech support people are
Americans in Florida. Cold call sales are probably in Calcutta or Mumbai.
>
> What turned out to be the truth was, YES Direct was willing to meet my
> programming and cost me fifty less for THREE MONTHS...at which time my
> monthly payment would jump....actually be six bucks MORE than I was
> already paying DISH. I dicovered this by calling the main Direct TV
> number and asking whether the Indian lady was correct.
>
> That the lady in Calcutta LIED, outright, to get her commision (at my
> expense) was a ****er I wont forget. IF I had gone to the trouble of
> switching, THEN found out three monhs later I was paying MORE...I'd have
> been OUTRAGED.
>
>
>
> Lass
>
You did right, always be suspect of cold calls offering any sort of deal.

I got a phone call from DirecTV this morning, wanting me to come back
into the fold. Offered me all the things I had been trying to get for
some months. Told them no, had a new provider. The woman who called got
upset when I refused to tell her who the new provider was. Finally just
told her it was none of her or DirecTV's business who my service was.
She wanted me to send the receiver back to them until I reminded her it
was never theirs to start with, it was purchased at Circuit City eleven
years ago.

I don't think she was happy, probably no commission for retaining a
customer. Tough, they should have been more cooperative to start with.

Default User wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>
>> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >
>> >> jmcquown wrote:
>> >
>> >> > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for
>> >> > the
>> >> last nearly 70 years.
>> >>
>> >> Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
>> >> steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.
>> >
>> > The government has mandated that everyone must use power
>> > steering and brakes, and that older cars without them must be
>> > retrofitted or will no longer be allowed on the roads? News
>> > to me.
>> >
>> >> > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
>> >> > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we
>> >> > receive television signals?
>> >>
>> >> Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!
>> >
>> > It ain't about better signals. It's about selling off the
>> > bandwidth for money.
>>
>> For the user, it's about better sigs.
>
> For the most, no it's not. People think it is, but for many it
> will make no difference. If you have clear reception now,
> digital will be transparent, other than having to use a separate
> box and control if you have an older TV. This isn't HDTV. For
> those with marginal reception, they might lose reception
> altoghether, or have badly pixelated reception. Digital ain't
> magic.
>
> If digital is so much better, the government would not need to
> mandate it. It would happen. Just as power steering and brakes
> have pretty much supplanted manual.

Only if the federal government had a department in charge of the
allocation of a limited supply of hydraulic fluid, as it does the
radio frequency bands. On my planet, they don't.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:
c.
> >
> > If digital is so much better, the government would not need to
> > mandate it. It would happen. Just as power steering and brakes
> > have pretty much supplanted manual.
>
> Only if the federal government had a department in charge of the
> allocation of a limited supply of hydraulic fluid, as it does the
> radio frequency bands. On my planet, they don't.

Which is why it was a lousy analogy. Glad you agree.

Once again, it's nothing to do with providing superior technology to
the unwashed masses. It's about chopping up the spectrum and using it
for other purposes.





Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Nancy Young wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > "Flat television sets that you can HANG on the WALL!" are one of the
> > few futuristic Jetson - type things that has eventually come to
> > fruition...atomic cars and vacation trips to the moon and food pills
> > we can do without. Flat - screen HDTV's are one of the few things
> > that someone from 50 years ago transported to today might truly be
> > enthralled by...
>
> Just like those old clunky monitors hogged my desk compared
> to the flat ones these days, I don't need a new tv but I'll be
> replacing mine in a couple three months just to have one that
> doesn't take up so much room.


I was in Best Buy the other evening and it was odd to see a grand total of
_two_ CRT TV's on the shelf...and of course thin computer monitors have been
the standard for a whiles now. CRT's look like really old technology now.
There are lots of big tube TV's set out for the garbage guys to pick up...

Getting back to useless trivia, there were two rival color TV systems in the
early 50's, one developed by CBS and the other by RCA. Initially the CBS
one was approved by the FCC but the powerful head of RCA, David Sarnoff,
twisted some governmental arms and got his RCA standard adopted. The CBS
system was apparently superior, but it was not "backwards compatible" with
black - and - white TV. Sarnoff scared the FCC and the media, saying that
every old b/w set would have to be junked and replaced with expensive new
color sets in order to receive color programming...thus RCA "compatible
color" became the norm, you could watch color programs on a b/w set...and
color TV did not really take off for another decade.

This move to digital has it's roots in that color brouhaha of 55 years
ago..."what's old is new again", etc.

;-)


--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 03:25:16 -0600, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:


>Lemme tell ya, I pooh - poohed the whole digital TV thang until recently,
>then a friend bought a new 42" Sony - yowzah! And a Blu-Ray DVD looks
>incredible on HDTV, too...I'm hooked! The new TV technologies are so
>superior to the old that there's not even any comparison, digital blows
>analog awaaaaay...it's like comparing 78's to CD's

I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.

Lou

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article 7>,
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options
>> for Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from
>> the same provider, Qwest, as was our phone service.
>
> I'm in a subdivision that was started in 1999 and built out in 2002;
> Qwest still doesn't have DSL here.
>

Have you looked into radio waves? The first service I had only required
a small box that sat on the desk. Unfortunately the people running it
didn't support it well and it was expensive for what I was getting.

The electric co-op has a deal with a broadband service from one of the
phone co-ops. You can get the service and they bill you on your electric
bill. I have their Silver service whish is in the neighborhood of 500
whatevers down and 250 whatevers up. It's not as fast as cable, but as
fast as some DSL and is plenty fast for my needs. Costs me about $50/month.

Lou Decruss wrote:

> I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
> because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
> that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
> We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
> won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
> make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.

I think that I have been spoiled with a large screen LCD TV. We moved
the old TV and satellite receiver to the guest room, and when I watch
that one now I wonder how we ever got by on that setup. A few weeks
before Christmas our neighbours invited us over to watch a DVD.They had
an old 25 inch sceen, and sitting half way across the room I couldn't
help but think what a small image it was, and their family room was so
big that a large screen TV would fit nicely.

After Christmas they invited us over to watch another DVD, but this time
on their new 52" plasma and blue ray. It was not a blue ray disk, but
even an ordinary DVD on that system looked pretty good.

It's a bitch having to cope with standards, but we have the option of
setting an standard or having a bunch of incompatible standards.
European televisions used to have better resolution than NA TVs because
they had more scan lines. They have more efficient electrical systems
because they use a higher voltage than us. A hundred years ago we
decided to standardize with 110 and 60 cycle AC. As things progress,
standards change, and as long as it is an improvement, it's probably a
good thing.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 06:45:52p, Arri London told us...
>
> >
> >
> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
> >>
> >> > George Shirley wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago
> >> >> along with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms.
> >> >> Advantage to moving into the 20th century over there, you get to get
> >> >> the latest stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars installing
> >> >> all that glass.
> >> >>
> >> >> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
> >> >
> >> > I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our lines
> >> > for DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation, they
> >> > don't want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies be
> >> > able to use what they paid for. We still have one of the few
> >> > non-digital switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at
> >> > it's very fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the phone
> >> > when I dial
> >> "O"
> >> >
> >>
> >> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options for
> >> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the same
> >> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the
> >> speed and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service
> >> through Cox is equal to the network at my office. When I work from
> >> home and connect to the network at work through a VPN connection, I
> >> can't even tell that I'm not sitting at my desk at the office. Our
> >> digital phone service, also through Cox, is superior to any that I've
> >> ever had.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Wayne Boatwright
> >
> >
> > We've got (Qwest) slow dialup too. Any upgrade would cost a lot for us.
> >
>
> Our Cox bundle for cable, broadband, and phone is $99/mo plus taxes.
>
>

That's three times what we are paying now