I received my phone bill yesterday, and it got me to thinking about the concept of long distance.
Since my cell service serves me in that capacity, I no longer carry a long distance connection on my land line. (Yes, I’m a bit of a dinosaur insomuch as I still even have a land line, but it’s one step at a time for me in this digital revolution.) It really wasn’t that long ago that land lines were required to have a long distance carrier. And the breakup of Ma Bell generated the advertising storm of switching services and cents per minute that fueled the broadcast media and direct mail for years. And that spawned the calling cards and the “dial 10-10…” numbers.
I remember learning to use the phone as a kid. Our exchange included letters. Maybe you remember that too. Ours was “Clifford 7” or “CL7” as I learned it. Numeric references took over by the time we moved when I was eight, and I learned my new phone number as “678” as opposed to its original “Orchard 8.”
Additionally, whenever I asked to make a call, it was always met with the query: “Do you have to dial a ‘1’ first?” Ah, the concept of dialing “1” for long distance…. It’s quickly becoming a fading memory. And the thrill of receiving a long-distance call! And running to get it. “Hurry, it’s long-distance!” The arrival of push button phones was cutting edge, and the families of the cool kids had them first. I remember wondering what the * and the # were for, and was told they’d be used for ‘something someday’ although no one could define what and when that would be over thirty-five years ago. In the meantime, they seemed to simply serve as symmetric placeholders for the dial pad.
Now we can’t live without * and # and there’s no more need to hurry for a long distance call. A minute is a minute is a minute. No longer does it cost more to call across the country than across the state, and in all likelihood, the phone is ringing right on your hip or in your pocket. And so long-distance calling quickly joins the memories of “touch tone,” dialing, party lines and switch board operators.
We proceed on through the 21st century.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Where Am I?
I used a GPS system for the first time last week. That may seem like a so-what comment, but those that know me will react with surprise. For most of my friends and those closest to me, I’m the only person they know who orienteers. The sport of orienteering, for those who aren’t familiar, is one of navigation that’s founded in the ability to read a map. Therein lays the surprise. Well that coupled with my suspicious perspective of technology. But the GPS came with the new cell phone, and, hey, it’s a free trial.
It’s got its pros and cons. On the bright side, if you’re hopelessly lost, GPS can pinpoint exactly where you are, and if you know where you are, you can figure out how to get where you’re going. The basic tenet of orienteering is to always know exactly where you are on the map. Although I sometimes struggle to find an orienteering control, I rarely “loose contact with the map” meaning I can always point to exactly where I am. So that GPS pinpoint can be a God-send, but at the same time, I find it a bit frightening. 1984, anyone?
Another benefit is that it’s small… no unwieldy road map to unfold, and then re-fold if you can. However, I find that to be a simultaneous detriment. I get the bigger picture with the road map, and what’s more, I can study it before I depart and keep the full map image in my head. Admittedly, my mental map (either road or orienteering type) fails me at times, and I think, “This is not how I pictured this….” That’s usually followed by a navigational error. So GPS could be the rescue.
And GPS talks to you, so you don’t need to take your eyes off the road. At the same time, there are several features on the screen that are helpful: mileage to next turn, total time left to reach the destination, the 3D view showing the road and the bends and turns that are approaching, and the identification of the next crossroads. All great stuff, but on a two-inch square screen, it takes more than a second to see it, so I’d rank it equal to the old-fashioned map in the time needed with eyes off the road.
The talking is okay. I’ve got a friend who refers to hers as “Sally Big Mouth.” My GPS also features a woman’s voice. Maybe they all do, but with all that technology can do, why can’t I choose the gender of the voice? I’d prefer a male voice… nice broadcaster type. Maybe that’s sexist, but it’s my preference, and I know I’m partial and biased.
So while I was driving, GPS spoke up and said “Severe traffic congestion ahead. Expect a four-hour delay.” Could that be true? The time-left indicator had, in fact, added four hours to my time of arrival. I debated finding an alternate route presuming the interstate had been closed with no opportunity to exit. Enter my suspicion of technology, so I kept to the known route. At no point did I encounter a delay, and noticed the arrival ETA stripping the hours and minutes off my time. GPS did not speak up at any point to correct itself. I figured it should, ala Gilda Radner of the old SNL skit, say: “Never mind.”
I used it again for the trip home. I live on an “avenue”; however, GPS refers to it as a “street”. About two miles from my home is a road of the same name designated as “lane.” I entered my address as “avenue”. As I approached the last crossroads before my street, GPS told me to turn the opposite way, presumably to take me to the “lane” location. When I pulled into my own driveway, GPS suggested I “make the next legal U-turn.” It was still making that suggestion as I walked into my kitchen.
Suspicion of technology continues.
It’s got its pros and cons. On the bright side, if you’re hopelessly lost, GPS can pinpoint exactly where you are, and if you know where you are, you can figure out how to get where you’re going. The basic tenet of orienteering is to always know exactly where you are on the map. Although I sometimes struggle to find an orienteering control, I rarely “loose contact with the map” meaning I can always point to exactly where I am. So that GPS pinpoint can be a God-send, but at the same time, I find it a bit frightening. 1984, anyone?
Another benefit is that it’s small… no unwieldy road map to unfold, and then re-fold if you can. However, I find that to be a simultaneous detriment. I get the bigger picture with the road map, and what’s more, I can study it before I depart and keep the full map image in my head. Admittedly, my mental map (either road or orienteering type) fails me at times, and I think, “This is not how I pictured this….” That’s usually followed by a navigational error. So GPS could be the rescue.
And GPS talks to you, so you don’t need to take your eyes off the road. At the same time, there are several features on the screen that are helpful: mileage to next turn, total time left to reach the destination, the 3D view showing the road and the bends and turns that are approaching, and the identification of the next crossroads. All great stuff, but on a two-inch square screen, it takes more than a second to see it, so I’d rank it equal to the old-fashioned map in the time needed with eyes off the road.
The talking is okay. I’ve got a friend who refers to hers as “Sally Big Mouth.” My GPS also features a woman’s voice. Maybe they all do, but with all that technology can do, why can’t I choose the gender of the voice? I’d prefer a male voice… nice broadcaster type. Maybe that’s sexist, but it’s my preference, and I know I’m partial and biased.
So while I was driving, GPS spoke up and said “Severe traffic congestion ahead. Expect a four-hour delay.” Could that be true? The time-left indicator had, in fact, added four hours to my time of arrival. I debated finding an alternate route presuming the interstate had been closed with no opportunity to exit. Enter my suspicion of technology, so I kept to the known route. At no point did I encounter a delay, and noticed the arrival ETA stripping the hours and minutes off my time. GPS did not speak up at any point to correct itself. I figured it should, ala Gilda Radner of the old SNL skit, say: “Never mind.”
I used it again for the trip home. I live on an “avenue”; however, GPS refers to it as a “street”. About two miles from my home is a road of the same name designated as “lane.” I entered my address as “avenue”. As I approached the last crossroads before my street, GPS told me to turn the opposite way, presumably to take me to the “lane” location. When I pulled into my own driveway, GPS suggested I “make the next legal U-turn.” It was still making that suggestion as I walked into my kitchen.
Suspicion of technology continues.
Friday, February 6, 2009
There’s Still No Free Lunch
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. There never was. There never will be.
Right? Right.
But the internet seems to have erased or, at least, blurred the concept. There are tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of sites that seemingly offer something for nothing. You’ve probably been on a thousand of them yourself. “Click here for your free <insert whatever here>.”
Free? Hardly. You’ve got to enter your data, at the very least your email address, to get what’s being offered. That was your payment: your contact information for future marketing efforts. Hey, if you’re really interested in the product, it’s a deal! And it’s a deal for the marketer because they’re after the data in the first place, and the more they can collect the better.
That concept, “click here for your free…” has altered our concept of getting a free lunch. It certainly seems free and has raised expectation that "free" reigns online.
I recently followed a chatroom string in which folks were trashing an online job posting board because the site took (wait for it…) a fee from every transaction. That’s right a fee from every transaction! Heaven forbid! A fee! On the internet! It was obviously unthinkable to them.
I wanted to chime in: “Someone has to work to keep the site operational and write all the code that makes the thing work in the first place (and work very nicely, if I might interject). You don’t work for free. Why should they?” But I kept quiet and clicked off assuming it would fall on deaf ears (or should that be “blind eyes” now?).
Oh sure, there are some whoppers out there that are free: Google, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, to name a few. Make that seemingly free – they’re selling ads (not unlike broadcast media) and collecting valuable data.
But for the most part, online business is just that: business. I’ve got a product or information that’s got some value to you. I’m going to charge you a fair price. It’s the foundation of capitalism, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you don’t like my price (or that fact that I’m going to charge you in the first place), by all means, search Google to see if you can find someone who’ll part with it for free. And good luck to you.
Right? Right.
But the internet seems to have erased or, at least, blurred the concept. There are tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of sites that seemingly offer something for nothing. You’ve probably been on a thousand of them yourself. “Click here for your free <insert whatever here>.”
Free? Hardly. You’ve got to enter your data, at the very least your email address, to get what’s being offered. That was your payment: your contact information for future marketing efforts. Hey, if you’re really interested in the product, it’s a deal! And it’s a deal for the marketer because they’re after the data in the first place, and the more they can collect the better.
That concept, “click here for your free…” has altered our concept of getting a free lunch. It certainly seems free and has raised expectation that "free" reigns online.
I recently followed a chatroom string in which folks were trashing an online job posting board because the site took (wait for it…) a fee from every transaction. That’s right a fee from every transaction! Heaven forbid! A fee! On the internet! It was obviously unthinkable to them.
I wanted to chime in: “Someone has to work to keep the site operational and write all the code that makes the thing work in the first place (and work very nicely, if I might interject). You don’t work for free. Why should they?” But I kept quiet and clicked off assuming it would fall on deaf ears (or should that be “blind eyes” now?).
Oh sure, there are some whoppers out there that are free: Google, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, to name a few. Make that seemingly free – they’re selling ads (not unlike broadcast media) and collecting valuable data.
But for the most part, online business is just that: business. I’ve got a product or information that’s got some value to you. I’m going to charge you a fair price. It’s the foundation of capitalism, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you don’t like my price (or that fact that I’m going to charge you in the first place), by all means, search Google to see if you can find someone who’ll part with it for free. And good luck to you.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A Whole New Vocabulary
Language evolves. It’s that simple. Despite my disdain for misuse of the English language, I know that. But think about the whole new vocabulary we’ve created through this digital revolution.
Let’s start with the obvious: Google. In case you didn’t know, besides being the premier search engine, it’s a term for ten to the one-hundredth power; that is: a ten with a hundred zeroes behind it. A big number. To its credit as jargon, Google entered as a verb. “I Googled it.” It took Xerox years to move from noun status (I need a Xerox [instead of the generic “copy”]) to that of a verb (I’ll Xerox it). Google – a big number and a powerful verb.
Text has also earned verb status: “I’ll text you.” It took a tad longer to get to that point than Google, but it’s certainly there now. No one questions it. And now we blog and we Digg and we Skype. Bad guys phish. User names and passwords abound. I recently saw “mouseover” for the first time and knew exactly what it meant.
Faxing and its related jargon are quickly heading for the museum if they’re not fully on display there already. Remember FedEx’s “Zap Mail”? When overnight wasn’t fast enough and we all scratched our heads and wondered how. We’re now texting all those folks we used to fax.
And in talking about big numbers, megs and gigs are commonplace. Anyone old enough to remember the start of this revolution and the advent of the digital age knows the whole thing is based on ones and zeroes. Bits and bytes. Even from the beginning they were measured as kilobytes, but megabytes? Wow, that was a big file. Moving it from one place to another could take hours. I now have a 4-gig flash drive smaller than my thumb, and I got it in a Cracker Jack box. It wasn’t long ago that four gigabytes of information ran on mainframes and even those guys were awed by the size. Do we still even have mainframes?
A friend commented that our communication has become very Star Trek-ish, and it’s true. In the not too distant future, we’ll all be tapping our lapel pins to chat with one another. I only wish food preparation technology was moving at the same speed. Let’s face it, microwaves haven’t changed much, if at all, in a quarter century. I’d like to have a food replicator soon. I’ve got all the communication technology I need for now. But a food replicator? Now we’re talkin’. “Tea. Earl Gray. Hot.” Or “Beer. Imported Ale. Cold.” Yeah. Now we’re really talkin’.
Let’s start with the obvious: Google. In case you didn’t know, besides being the premier search engine, it’s a term for ten to the one-hundredth power; that is: a ten with a hundred zeroes behind it. A big number. To its credit as jargon, Google entered as a verb. “I Googled it.” It took Xerox years to move from noun status (I need a Xerox [instead of the generic “copy”]) to that of a verb (I’ll Xerox it). Google – a big number and a powerful verb.
Text has also earned verb status: “I’ll text you.” It took a tad longer to get to that point than Google, but it’s certainly there now. No one questions it. And now we blog and we Digg and we Skype. Bad guys phish. User names and passwords abound. I recently saw “mouseover” for the first time and knew exactly what it meant.
Faxing and its related jargon are quickly heading for the museum if they’re not fully on display there already. Remember FedEx’s “Zap Mail”? When overnight wasn’t fast enough and we all scratched our heads and wondered how. We’re now texting all those folks we used to fax.
And in talking about big numbers, megs and gigs are commonplace. Anyone old enough to remember the start of this revolution and the advent of the digital age knows the whole thing is based on ones and zeroes. Bits and bytes. Even from the beginning they were measured as kilobytes, but megabytes? Wow, that was a big file. Moving it from one place to another could take hours. I now have a 4-gig flash drive smaller than my thumb, and I got it in a Cracker Jack box. It wasn’t long ago that four gigabytes of information ran on mainframes and even those guys were awed by the size. Do we still even have mainframes?
A friend commented that our communication has become very Star Trek-ish, and it’s true. In the not too distant future, we’ll all be tapping our lapel pins to chat with one another. I only wish food preparation technology was moving at the same speed. Let’s face it, microwaves haven’t changed much, if at all, in a quarter century. I’d like to have a food replicator soon. I’ve got all the communication technology I need for now. But a food replicator? Now we’re talkin’. “Tea. Earl Gray. Hot.” Or “Beer. Imported Ale. Cold.” Yeah. Now we’re really talkin’.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Change. A New Era.
So we inaugurated the forty-forth president and the first African American yesterday. Historic implications aside, I’m always a little in awe of the event. To be quite specific: the peaceful transition of power, regardless of party affiliations. It renews my respect and admiration for our founding fathers. It took incredible vision and effort, as well as literal blood, sweat and tears to launch this country.
I’ve read the stories and quote upon quote about a new day dawning, needed change at hand, the positive electricity elicited by this new administration, the next American Camelot. And what’s to become of all that?
If we, the people, don’t do anything, this new administration will idle in neutral and trillions more of our tax dollar spiral down that drain. It’s up to us, as citizens, to roll up our sleeves and get the job done. No handouts, just hard work. The government does not owe anyone a living. Not in this country.
I read this comment today about the inauguration: “For the first time, thousands of Americans are ready and willing to pick up a shovel and do their part of the work.” I gotta ask: Why weren’t they willing to do their part of the work yesterday or the day before that or the day before that? Or even years ago? Seems sad to me that thousands haven’t considered it until yesterday. I suspect our founding fathers would also find that sentiment disappointing, at best.
In looking for a bright side to that comment, I’m hoping the thousands, or even maybe millions, who were moved yesterday “for the first time to pick up a shovel and do their part of the work” do just that. And that they keep doing it even when they get tired of doing it. That we all keep doing it even when we all get tired of doing it. And even if it means we have to shed some blood, sweat and tears in the effort. If you need a role model, crack open a U.S. history book. Look up Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Lee, Bartlett, or any other signer of the Declaration of Independence. Then go to the chapter about drafting the U.S. Constitution.
I’ve read the stories and quote upon quote about a new day dawning, needed change at hand, the positive electricity elicited by this new administration, the next American Camelot. And what’s to become of all that?
If we, the people, don’t do anything, this new administration will idle in neutral and trillions more of our tax dollar spiral down that drain. It’s up to us, as citizens, to roll up our sleeves and get the job done. No handouts, just hard work. The government does not owe anyone a living. Not in this country.
I read this comment today about the inauguration: “For the first time, thousands of Americans are ready and willing to pick up a shovel and do their part of the work.” I gotta ask: Why weren’t they willing to do their part of the work yesterday or the day before that or the day before that? Or even years ago? Seems sad to me that thousands haven’t considered it until yesterday. I suspect our founding fathers would also find that sentiment disappointing, at best.
In looking for a bright side to that comment, I’m hoping the thousands, or even maybe millions, who were moved yesterday “for the first time to pick up a shovel and do their part of the work” do just that. And that they keep doing it even when they get tired of doing it. That we all keep doing it even when we all get tired of doing it. And even if it means we have to shed some blood, sweat and tears in the effort. If you need a role model, crack open a U.S. history book. Look up Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Lee, Bartlett, or any other signer of the Declaration of Independence. Then go to the chapter about drafting the U.S. Constitution.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Another step taken in the 21st Century
Admittedly, I think I was the last one to jump into digital photography. At the very least, I was way behind the curve. I’ve been a self-proclaimed purist all my life, and when the digital realm invaded photography, I was having none of it. Oh, it was fine for snapshots and everyday photos, but I was still quite attached to my 35mm even for snapshots and everyday photos.
“When there’s a digital equivalent to my 35mm, I’ll think about it.”
Then I began reading that many professionals were making the switch, so I investigated their thoughts on the pros and cons. Not that I’m any where near that level, but I figured they were purists just like me. Some loved it, some hated it. I talked at length with the owner of my local photo store about her thoughts. I waited.
Soon, an issue of photography’s flagship, National Geographic, showed up in my mailbox with references to images on their pages being created with digital cameras. Okay, I’ll bite.
Then I saw the price. So I waited some more, and saved, and waited and saved. I researched the camera that would be the closest digital match to my 35mm… and I saved some more.
In the spring of 2006, I took the plunge. I can’t say “I never looked back,” but it certainly has its advantages. Everyone proclaimed unlimited shooting as the biggest advantage. Hey, that never stopped me with film. In my mind, it was always “just another frame.” I always knew out of every roll, there’d be one shot, maybe two that were winners. Nothing’s changed with digital. A poor composition is still a poor composition and bad lighting is still bad lighting.
Granted, the mistakes don’t cost as much any more, but they’re by no means free. Quite a lot of time is spent downloading, editing, cataloging and archiving. In retrospect, some days it really was easier just to drop off a canister (or, in my case, canisters) at the photo store and wait for the results.
For me, the biggest advantage has been getting through airport security. No more insisting that my film be hand-checked and arguing with TSA staff to heed my request because the ISO was below 800. I guess they were often put off by the quantity despite the fact that I had all rolls out of their containers and in a clear bag.
So with a nod and tip-of-the-hat to another facet of the digital revolution, even I don’t use the adjective “digital” any more when referring to my camera. In fact, quite the opposite: My older one is now called my “film” camera. Another forward step in the 21st century.
So with all that said, I’m taking the liberty of posting my favorite shots from the year just passed. Maybe you’ll enjoy them, maybe you won’t. And the internet is just like TV: if you don’t like what you see, change the station… or turn it off.
Cactus at Zion; effervescent happy hour; Angel's Landing trail
“When there’s a digital equivalent to my 35mm, I’ll think about it.”
Then I began reading that many professionals were making the switch, so I investigated their thoughts on the pros and cons. Not that I’m any where near that level, but I figured they were purists just like me. Some loved it, some hated it. I talked at length with the owner of my local photo store about her thoughts. I waited.
Soon, an issue of photography’s flagship, National Geographic, showed up in my mailbox with references to images on their pages being created with digital cameras. Okay, I’ll bite.
Then I saw the price. So I waited some more, and saved, and waited and saved. I researched the camera that would be the closest digital match to my 35mm… and I saved some more.
In the spring of 2006, I took the plunge. I can’t say “I never looked back,” but it certainly has its advantages. Everyone proclaimed unlimited shooting as the biggest advantage. Hey, that never stopped me with film. In my mind, it was always “just another frame.” I always knew out of every roll, there’d be one shot, maybe two that were winners. Nothing’s changed with digital. A poor composition is still a poor composition and bad lighting is still bad lighting.
Granted, the mistakes don’t cost as much any more, but they’re by no means free. Quite a lot of time is spent downloading, editing, cataloging and archiving. In retrospect, some days it really was easier just to drop off a canister (or, in my case, canisters) at the photo store and wait for the results.
For me, the biggest advantage has been getting through airport security. No more insisting that my film be hand-checked and arguing with TSA staff to heed my request because the ISO was below 800. I guess they were often put off by the quantity despite the fact that I had all rolls out of their containers and in a clear bag.
So with a nod and tip-of-the-hat to another facet of the digital revolution, even I don’t use the adjective “digital” any more when referring to my camera. In fact, quite the opposite: My older one is now called my “film” camera. Another forward step in the 21st century.
So with all that said, I’m taking the liberty of posting my favorite shots from the year just passed. Maybe you’ll enjoy them, maybe you won’t. And the internet is just like TV: if you don’t like what you see, change the station… or turn it off.
Cactus at Zion; effervescent happy hour; Angel's Landing trail
Note: Seems "Blogger" doesn't allow me to post as many as I'd like, so for the rest, click the link to Flickr below:
Thursday, January 8, 2009
39 Days and counting....
I heard a countdown today: “Only 39 days until…” and immediately looked at the calendar. It’s January 8th and the inauguration’s on the 20th. Hhhmmm…? Far fewer than 39 days.
“… the end of analog television.” Ah, the end of television, not the peaceful transition of government upon which our great country was founded. “And the Consumer Union is lobbying Congress to delay the February 17th deadline as they’re convinced millions of households are going to be left without television.”
Congress began a new session this week. A new party comes to power. Both Minnesota and Illinois are without junior Senators. The country’s still facing economic turmoil, recessions, a possible depression, record unemployment, bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit, consumer fear and ongoing arguments over stimulus packages, just to name a few minor problems. Seems to me that the 111th Congress has more important issues to legislate than the end of analog television. Then again, it was Congress that mandated it in the first place.
Why are we switching? According to DTV.gov (a website by the Federal Communication Commission and available in 21 languages, thank you very much): “An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that it will free up parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum for public safety communications (such as police, fire departments, and rescue squads).” Seems fair. Public safety and all.
“Also, some of the spectrum will be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).” Okay, there’s the rub: the cash: “auctioned.”
My question really isn’t about whether or not we need to switch or who gets rich because of it. It’s about the supposed millions who are going to be left without television. Haven’t they been watching for the last year or two? Haven’t they seen all the commercials and newscasts about the switch to digital TV? Could they possibly be unaware that if they don’t take action, they’ll be left without beloved television? As I figure it, they only way they could have missed this would be if they weren’t watching in the first place. And if that’s the case, they probably won’t miss it after February 17th. Right? A perfect Catch-22.
And for those with older TV’s who might be learning about the switch to digital by reading this blog, here’s a note: through a government-established program, every household is eligible for $40 coupons toward the purchase of a converter box so you can still see TV programming. And hey, you can get two of them.
Makes me wonder if the 111th Congress is going to send eighty bucks to those people who don’t watch television in the first place….
“… the end of analog television.” Ah, the end of television, not the peaceful transition of government upon which our great country was founded. “And the Consumer Union is lobbying Congress to delay the February 17th deadline as they’re convinced millions of households are going to be left without television.”
Congress began a new session this week. A new party comes to power. Both Minnesota and Illinois are without junior Senators. The country’s still facing economic turmoil, recessions, a possible depression, record unemployment, bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit, consumer fear and ongoing arguments over stimulus packages, just to name a few minor problems. Seems to me that the 111th Congress has more important issues to legislate than the end of analog television. Then again, it was Congress that mandated it in the first place.
Why are we switching? According to DTV.gov (a website by the Federal Communication Commission and available in 21 languages, thank you very much): “An important benefit of the switch to all-digital broadcasting is that it will free up parts of the valuable broadcast spectrum for public safety communications (such as police, fire departments, and rescue squads).” Seems fair. Public safety and all.
“Also, some of the spectrum will be auctioned to companies that will be able to provide consumers with more advanced wireless services (such as wireless broadband).” Okay, there’s the rub: the cash: “auctioned.”
My question really isn’t about whether or not we need to switch or who gets rich because of it. It’s about the supposed millions who are going to be left without television. Haven’t they been watching for the last year or two? Haven’t they seen all the commercials and newscasts about the switch to digital TV? Could they possibly be unaware that if they don’t take action, they’ll be left without beloved television? As I figure it, they only way they could have missed this would be if they weren’t watching in the first place. And if that’s the case, they probably won’t miss it after February 17th. Right? A perfect Catch-22.
And for those with older TV’s who might be learning about the switch to digital by reading this blog, here’s a note: through a government-established program, every household is eligible for $40 coupons toward the purchase of a converter box so you can still see TV programming. And hey, you can get two of them.
Makes me wonder if the 111th Congress is going to send eighty bucks to those people who don’t watch television in the first place….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
