bicker

__________________
Back from Vacation

EscapeVelocity

Yes, radio communication on the AM and FM band can serve the purpose.

What we are seeing here is the situation across Western countries where wants become demanded rights. Where is one person or group has something and other persons or groups dont, then a great injustice has taken place, a crime against humanity, racism, sexism or some other ism.

Its a crying shame.

__________________
.
.

bicker

Uh, no. My wife is mostly deaf. Radio doesn't help her. And remember that federal law considers hearing impairment a protected class.

I agree, vehemently, that there is an insane amount of that going on, these days. It's ridiculous. However, support for emergency notification via over-the-air broadcast happens not to be one of those situations. That actually is a federally-guaranteed right.

__________________
Back from Vacation

Tim58hsv

Could be the CEA is leading a preemptive strike against the sleeping giant ota. I've said it many times before and will repeat it again, ota now has the potential to put a big hurt on pay tv like never before.

Far as the end of ota goes, I seriously doubt it. Broadcasters are already saying 'No' to selling out their share of the spectrum and they have a darn good podium already in place to get their message out to the people.

__________________
I Want My RETRO TV

EscapeVelocity

Which can be handled by PBS and its nationwide affiliates.

__________________
.
.

BCF68

In case you didn't know the PEOPLE own the airwaves, not the government or wireless companies trying to theive them. THE PEOPLE. So since I own the airwaves I would expect that they are mine to use FREELY. Why should I have to pay to use something I already own?

bicker

I agree. Essentially, OTA can contract to four or five channels (so that neighboring PBS stations don't step on each other) and that'll serve the emergency notification needs.

__________________
Back from Vacation

bicker

The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. I think sometimes folks who say what you've said here are implying that any individual should feel entitled to use shared resources as they personally see fit. Instead, in this a civilized society, government is the tool by which the people come to consensus with regard to the necessary and proper use of shared national resources. (And of course, the same applies with regard to state resources, with regard to state residents, and so on...)

You don't. Vanquish that erroneous bit of entitlement before it leads you down paths of rhetoric that are patently indefensible.

Because We The People have decided that each citizen-user shall pay a fee. Additional examples include fees for using National Parks, and some highways (toll roads).

This is a really critical issue: Individuals do not own anything other than their own personal assets. The assets that are owned "by the people" are not entitlements of individuals, but rather resources the use of which is to be mediated by the government.

__________________
Back from Vacation