The State of OTA (Over-The-Air Discussion)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thomas G

Contributor
#1
Will OTA TV survive or will congress auction off the rest of the broadcast airwaves and force consumers to pay for cable or satellite television.

Gordon Smith just took over (sometime in October, 09) as CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters.

Here's a Q and A on what he thinks of the future of broadcasters:

Q: In the future, with the unpredictable economic environment and with the increasing use of mobile and multi-media platforms, what do you think the role of the broadcaster will be in the future?

A: I actually see the roles of broadcasting as being more important in the coming days despite the Internet, because I think technology, which has changed the delivery of content to eyes and ears, will also include broadcasting. I think it’s not hard to predict that in the coming years, the very near years, your cell phone will also be a radio and a mobile TV. So the American people will be reminded again of the value of free over-the-air broadcasting.

We are used to, I think, paying for cable and satellite services but even without those services you can get a great deal of broadcast content just over public airwaves. Many people have forgotten that, because they want the great breadth you get through subscription services, but with mobile TV and with mobile radio in your cell phone, you’ll have just more ways to stay attuned to your local community.
 
Last edited:

FOX TV

Contributor
#2
DTV's Future

Will OTA TV survive or will congress auction off the rest of the broadcast airwaves and force consumers to pay for cable or satellite television.

Gordan Smith just took over (sometime in October, 09) as CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters.

Here's a Q and A on what he thinks of the future of broadcasters:
I think OTA TV faces some big threats from several powerful entities who have a plan to provide "Advertiser supported Broadcast Internet" using the current TV broadcast bands. This is not a fantasy or some type of illusion, as the internet giants insist that they will get OTA TV taken off the air, and replace it with a form of "Advertiser supported Super WI Max service" with free internet access for all of the huddled masses.

This is in addition to "White space wireless devices", which use unproven spectrum sensing technology on vacant DTV channels. In addition, there has been recent consideration to letting certain types of wireless medical devices use certain DTV frequencies for monitoring and control of patients etc.

Here is a White space scenario to consider. Your average apartment complex with basement apartments, where I live in the basement apartment, and my upstairs neighbor, Joe The Viewer is watching the Super Bowl on his favorite OTA DTV channel. Suddenly, his channel goes black, and the dreaded "No Signal" pest shows up on his screen. He immediately changes channels, but all of his channels say "No Signal". and he is furious that he is missing the Bowl game. He tries for the remainder of the game to adjust, re-scan, re-orient his antenna, and all of the other well known steps to gain his signals back with no success.

The next day he calls that station and blasts them for going off the air during the game. Of course,the Engineering dept. says there were no problems with the signal during the game, but Joe The Viewer does not believe them, and vows to never watch that station again. By coincidence, Joe The Viewer is a Nielson Ratings Household with a ratings diary lying on his coffee table, and he gets the bright idea to change all of his entries for his once favorite channel, which he now despises.

The problem with this scenario is that the reason he lost his signal were due to issues he cannot control, and is likely not even aware of. While all of this was taking place, I was occupied with my new and fantastic electronic white space device with its wonderful spectrum sensing technology in a basement apartment, where it could not detect the existing DTV signals because it was being used in a basement apartment and could not receive or sense the DTV signals, it comes online directly on the channel that Joe The Viewer was watching, and it blanked out the Super Bowl for Joe The Viewer.

White space devices and that type of spectrum sensing technology are not perfected, and have great potential for interference to unsuspecting DTV viewers, along with other emerging threats that we will hear about in the future.
 

Tim58hsv

DTVUSA Member
#3
Some short sighted narrow minded economist geek named Tom Hazlett also believes that OTA MUST DIE! Apparently he believes that everyone should pay to watch tv.

He makes his case here....
http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/putting-price-tag-on-tv-spectrum-guest.html

My rebuttal...

You really need to look ahead and not at the past for the potential growth and thus worth of ota television in the future.

The switch from analog to digital could be a gold mine for ota broadcasters if they take advantage of their subchannels. In a tv market that previously had only one ota channel, they can now have five (or even more) ota channels thanks to the digital switch. If a tv market previously had 10 analog channels, they can now have 50 or more.

That equals a lot of potential revenue thru advertising for those ota broadcasters so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

Oh, and if the ota broadcasters do decide to take full advantage the digital spectrum they've been given, my bet is that a lot of people would be more than happy to get that pay tv monkey off their back once and for all.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#4
I agree completely about the white spaces devices, that were discussed ad nauseum over at AVS.

Something I find so interesting, and tried to discuss it before, but it seems it can't be.

I thought everyone was all excited about high definition, improved pictures. But it seems there is this attraction to actually go backwards in resolution with things like FloTV, putting 5 subchannels on an ATSC channel.

I think once most people actually own even a cheap small 720P TV, and not using a converter they will see how low the resolution really is with a bazillion sub channels, or FloTV made for small screens, or the limits of bandwidth on a wireless channel on demand TV.

Plus I will say this over and over. If the wireless industry gets every last TV channel, they will be out of bandwidth within less than 10 years. Then what? Ok they get all the ham bands, that helps out for about a year or two. Then what? Then they go to microwave bands which have limited range and why they wanted 700 MHz band so bad to begin with and want the rest of UHF TV.

This is why it's even silly to discuss these technically looking at is as just a question of greed more than anything else. It's simply yet another way for a small handful to people to gain greatly while raping the people. Then defended by asking that question, "So you are against capitalism?"

So it is true that Bush started the DTV Transition? I thought, well never mind.....
 

Thomas G

Contributor
#5
The FCC seeks more data on spectrum usage

This hit the news today.

This is a notice from the FCC

“How should the commission evaluate the future economic value of over-the-air digital television and new capabilities to offer mobile TV broadcasting? How does the financial community in general view that future value?,”
“After a review of the responses to the Spectrum for Broadband Public Notice, we seek more specific data on the use of spectrum currently licensed to broadcast television stations,” the notice stated. “This inquiry takes into account the value that the United States puts on free, over-the-air television, while also exploring market-based mechanisms for television broadcasters to contribute to the broadband effort any spectrum in excess of that which they need to meet their public interest obligations and remain financially viable. This inquiry also seeks to understand what processes and incentives could ensure continuing spectral efficiency gains for broadcasters going forward.”
TVB | FCC Inquiry Focuses on Broadcast Spectrum
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#6
The chances of over-the-air going away have to be pretty slim. It would have to be the ultimate jack move if Congress started pulling licenses and auctioning off more of the spectrum after forcing stations to pay for upgrading their transmitters to digital.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#7
Some short sighted narrow minded economist geek named Tom Hazlett also believes that OTA MUST DIE! Apparently he believes that everyone should pay to watch tv.

He makes his case here....
SpectrumTalk

My rebuttal...

You really need to look ahead and not at the past for the potential growth and thus worth of ota television in the future.

The switch from analog to digital could be a gold mine for ota broadcasters if they take advantage of their subchannels. In a tv market that previously had only one ota channel, they can now have five (or even more) ota channels thanks to the digital switch. If a tv market previously had 10 analog channels, they can now have 50 or more.

That equals a lot of potential revenue thru advertising for those ota broadcasters so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

Oh, and if the ota broadcasters do decide to take full advantage the digital spectrum they've been given, my bet is that a lot of people would be more than happy to get that pay tv monkey off their back once and for all.
One point I try to make to "satellite" viewers is the monthly charge for locals is not worth paying for since they are available over the air. Spend about $300 or so on a good antenna installation and drop the local channels package from your monthly satellite bill. The antenna will pay for itself in a short time. Not to mention the compression rates the satellite providers use, which makes the OTA HD signal more robust in picture quality than the compressed HD signal that sat and cable guys provide for their viewers.

I had a conversation with a Direc TV viewer about a year ago who wanted an High Definition satellite waiver for Direc TV since our market was not up on satellite in HD at that time. I looked him up on TV Fool and he had fantastic signal levels and line of sight for everything in this market. I asked him if he had tried antenna reception, and his response was " I don't want an ugly TV antenna on my chimney" I asked him where his Direc TV dish was mounted, and his response was "On my chimney".

My response to him was "Well sir, it seems you already have an "Ugly TV Antenna" on your chimney, and a off air TV antenna is no different. It performs the same function as your satellite dish, as it also receives digital TV signals that you want to view, which is exactly what your existing "Ugly TV Antenna" does. Needless to say, he was not granted a waiver, and now this market is up on the Satellites in HD, so our waiver headache suddenly went away.

That is an example of the image that Broadcast TV has among the general public. Broadcasters have a chance to revive OTA TV with this new digital technology, and it is up to them to push equipment makers into bringing DTV into the modern world by bringing broadcast and internet ready receivers into being so that broadcasters can be competitive with other delivery methods, and to also appeal to the younger "Tech" generation. Marry the internet with Broadcast TV.

There are possible uses for the unused DTV bandwidth that haven't even been thought of yet. In a lot of cases, the bandwidth allocated to a certain DTV data stream is dictated by the affiliated network to ensure a high quality HD signal. This could be a hindrance to some stations who have a major network affiliation agreement, but it is not a big problem unless they broadcast HD signals.

Lets get creative and figure out some new and innovative uses for DTV besides Mobile DTV, and save this wonderful new broadcast media from extinction before all of its potential benefits can be realized.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#8
DTV Under Attack for greed !!

Some short sighted narrow minded economist geek named Tom Hazlett also believes that OTA MUST DIE! Apparently he believes that everyone should pay to watch tv.
This guy Tom Hazlett is nothing but a spoiled brat, and a greedy money monger with a PHD. It is his type that has partially gotten us into the economic mess we are currently in (IE banking CEO'S, he kinda reminds me of one). He sees dollars instead of Mhz, and seemingly could care less that there are millions of people who cannot afford pay TV, the internet, or even in some cases, food, and they have no choice but to rely on free OTA TV for information, entertainment, and emergency notifications.

Do we just wisk them aside in favor of the greed for the almighty dollar? Current predictions in some circles see more OTA viewers due to the poor economy than in recent past years. When people have to make cuts, entertainment is normally the first thing to go. Should we make them second class citizens due to their economic situation?

Have we gotten so cold hearted for greed of the dollar that we can justify denying these people of an almost basic need? Why do we have to continually bow down and make way for those greedy companies who already have enough money to finance this country out of its hard times if they chose to do so, and then support them by climbing on board with them by using their gimmick filled and sometimes unnecessary technology and services? Let's all hope that Mr.Tom Hazlett never gets his greedy wish.

I can't believe that he expects the taxpayer to subsidize TV for those who cannot afford TV for the sake of big profits for private companies. It is not my or your place to provide entertainment for the masses. If these private companies do succeed in stealing this spectrum, it is they who should pay for access to those who cannot afford it. After all, you are using a "Limited Public Resource" for private profits, and planning to sap the taxpayers for the costs. It's time to wake up here and smell the coffee, and right now, the coffee smells terrible for the fate of DTV broadcasting.

Mr.Tom Hazlett, not everyone needs mobile TV, mobile Twitter, or face book, or my space, or Google or Microsoft or wireless this and wireless anything and everything. Mr. Hazlett, I hope you never get your wish, and it is obvious that to you, money is everything, and when obtaining it, never let anything get in the way.

When the greed for the dollar is more important than human compassion and basic human needs, then it is time to step back and take a fresh look from deep inside the heart, if you still have one. Sometimes enough is enough, and it sounds like you must also think that we need even more wireless electromagnetic pollution to live among, but that is another topic for a later time.
 
Last edited:

Piggie

Super Moderator
#9
Exactly. About 75% of my neighbors that have come over in my living room don't even know they are watching OTA. They say, I can't get that local on my dish (we live in the Orlando OTA but WAY to far away to receive their signals, but very close to the Gainesville FL OTA and a simple UHF pulls in at least those).

But then even though they are excited I have a way to receive the Gainesville locals and they can't, when I tell them it's a TV antenna. The most common response is,

"I don't need an antenna because I have satellite".

I say wait, you just said you didn't get those channels and would like them?

Yeah, but I don't want an antenna. Then like you I say, "Your dish is an antenna".

In result is they think I am so over the top, and esoteric, they walk off with the same opinion they walked in the door.

The cable companies and now satellite companies have done a VERY convincing job of brainwashing the public.

Sure cable and satellite is good. I have a sat dish and love several of the channels it brings me. But we live in a common situation, where there are locals you can easily receive with a small UHF antenna that you can't get for any price on satellite.

How to push it's possible? Gainesville TV ( WNBW, WGFL, and several translators) has an advertising campaign for using OTA. That's its cheap and just requires an antenna.

I think though from what you said FOX and what I hear, is people don't think a dish is an antenna. It's pretty, a sign of financial success to have one, but a TV antenna is ugly.

I think you hit the button, because I have heard it over and over and never really had it stick in my brain. They do have a TV antenna! Their dish.

If the dish could be equated to a TV antenna they might become vague again.

I remember as a kid in the 60's, those with the best antenna and picture were like having the biggest boat in the driveway.

Then cable did a great job of convincing the public antennas are ugly to sell more cable.

It worked.

========

Yeah, probably good for another place and time, but I agree FOX that greed has exceeded the rational part of the human experience.
 
Last edited:

FOX TV

Contributor
#10
Exactly. About 75% of my neighbors that have come over in my living room don't even know they are watching OTA. They say, I can't get that local on my dish (we live in the Orlando OTA but WAY to far away to receive their signals, but very close to the Gainesville FL OTA and a simple UHF pulls in at least those).

But then even though they are excited I have a way to receive the Gainesville locals and they can't, when I tell them it's a TV antenna. The most common response is,

"I don't need an antenna because I have satellite".

I say wait, you just said you didn't get those channels and would like them?

Yeah, but I don't want an antenna. Then like you I say, "Your dish is an antenna".

In result is they think I am so over the top, and esoteric, they walk off with the same opinion they walked in the door.

The cable companies and now satellite companies have done a VERY convincing job of brainwashing the public.

Sure cable and satellite is good. I have a sat dish and love several of the channels it brings me. But we live in a common situation, where there are locals you can easily receive with a small UHF antenna that you can't get for any price on satellite.

How to push it's possible? Gainesville TV ( WNBW, WGFL, and several translators) has an advertising campaign for using OTA. That's its cheap and just requires an antenna.

I think though from what you said FOX and what I hear, is people don't think a dish is an antenna. It's pretty, a sign of financial success to have one, but a TV antenna is ugly.

I think you hit the button, because I have heard it over and over and never really had it stick in my brain. They do have a TV antenna! Their dish.

If the dish could be equated to a TV antenna they might become vague again.

I remember as a kid in the 60's, those with the best antenna and picture were like having the biggest boat in the driveway.

Then cable did a great job of convincing the public antennas are ugly to sell more cable.

It worked.

========

Yeah, probably good for another place and time, but I agree FOX that greed has exceeded the rational part of the human experience.
The cable industry has always went the extra mile to squash its competition. I had a C-Band sat dish in 1985, and it looked like the taxpayers would finally get some direct benefit from all of the money we spent on the space program.

The cable industry spent tons of money on a campaign to label TVRO users as crooks and thieves, and literally destroyed a fledgling industry before it could gain a foot hold as being legitimate. I even attended a Congressional hearing regarding TVRO owners, and the words Pirate, Crooks, and thieves were used heavily.

The cable industry called for these hearings for the express purpose of labeling the entire industry as crooks and Thieves. They succeeded in destroying that concept before it could become viable. This was basically the predecessor to Direc TV and Dish Network we have today.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#11
... it looked like the taxpayers would finally get some direct benefit from all of the money we spent on the space program.
What? Because taxpayers didn't get some direct benefit from MRIs and CATscans? .... from LEDs, smoke detectors, cordless power tools, or home insulation? ... from firefighter breathing systems, or the Jaws of Life? :alien:

This was basically the predecessor to Direc TV and Dish Network we have today.
So satellite television did succeed as an industry.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#12
Capitalism /

I agree completely about the white spaces devices, that were discussed ad nauseum over at AVS.

It is a question of greed more than anything else. It's simply yet another way for a small handful to people to gain greatly while raping the people. Then defended by asking that question, "So you are against capitalism?"

So it is true that Bush started the DTV Transition? I thought, well never mind.....
Capitalism works well until greed takes over, and then the greed spreads like a virus until everyone is affected by it. Capitalism made this country what it is today, but in order for Capitalism to function properly, it has to co-exist with honesty, and as we can see from the last presidential election, honesty is a thing of the past, and without it, Capitalism does not work !!

The Bush Administration can take some of the blame, but not the second Bush Administration. All of the Digital TV talk was just getting started near the end of his fathers term in office.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#13
Satellite TV

What? Because taxpayers didn't get some direct benefit from MRIs and CATscans? .... from LEDs, smoke detectors, cordless power tools, or home insulation? ... from firefighter breathing systems, or the Jaws of Life? :alien:

So satellite television did succeed as an industry.
If you call success domination by a couple of big industries as success, then yes, satellite television did succeed, but not without help from the US government and its taxpayers.

The government took military technology that was paid for by taxpayers, and handed it over to private industry for profit. When will the American public benefit directly from all of the technology the Military develops, and then turns it over to private enterprise for free at the expense of the very ones who paid for it.

The TVRO industry had it succeeded, would have had much more competition from independent program packages, rather than just 2 choices as we now have. Success is defined in the eye of the beholder. I don't view it as a success when competition is squashed in a "Free market Society".
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#14
If you call success domination by a couple of big industries as success, then yes, satellite television did succeed, but not without help from the US government and its taxpayers.
It is the job of the government to foster the economy, and especially to foster competitive industries.

The government took military technology that was paid for by taxpayers, and handed it over to private industry for profit.
As well they should. See above vis a vis all the advances government investment in space technology has led to, in terms of commercial enterprises making our everyday lives, here on Earth, better.

When will the American public benefit directly from all of the technology the Military develops, and then turns it over to private enterprise for free at the expense of the very ones who paid for it.
Benefit "directly"? So you're essentially biasing your question so that the only non-negative answer is one that is compatible with your own personal political perspective. :rolleyes:

We benefit as we are supposed to benefit, even if it is not the way you personally want to benefit.
 

O-O

DTVUSA Member
#15
It is the job of the government to foster the economy, and especially to foster competitive industries.
Very true, but we all know that corporations and big businesses like to foster the governmental persons (ahem Congress and FCC) that foster competitive industries.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#16
You speak of businesses as if they're separate from us... remember much of what you seem to be objecting to are things that benefit some of us (even perhaps yourself), and therefore reasonable people, fellow posters (like myself), may simply be pursuing completely different, but equally defensible, objectives.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#17
Off topic and political, Sorry, I could not resist.

It is the job of the government to foster the economy, and especially to foster competitive industries.

As well they should. See above vis a vis all the advances government investment in space technology has led to, in terms of commercial enterprises making our everyday lives, here on Earth, better.

Benefit "directly"? So you're essentially biasing your question so that the only non-negative answer is one that is compatible with your own personal political perspective. :rolleyes:

We benefit as we are supposed to benefit, even if it is not the way you personally want to benefit.
The only jobs the government can create are government jobs themselves. The governments main role back when it was conceived was to develop and maintain a standing army for defense, and maintain a system of Judicial courts to settle disputes that could not be settled at the state level. the individual states is where the power is "Supposed" to be held, not at the federal level.

From your perspective, it would seem that you must approve of the Bailouts of privately held companies by taxpayers, but to me that is criminal. If a business is to big to fail, that business needs to be broken up into smaller segments that cannot kill the worlds economy if it fails as it did in the recent past. This was done to AT&T back in the 1960's and 70's to eliminate a monopoly, and that needs to be done to the financial institutions to ensure that the Great Depression never happens again.

In a "Free Market Society", jobs are created in the private sector, and not by government. Our high Corporate tax rate, and the "China Connection" and all of this talk about health care reform, are the main reasons there are no jobs to be had.

Implement the "Fair Tax", and reduce corporate tax rates to well below the worlds average, and you will have business flocking back to this country in droves, but keep the corporate tax rate at the second highest in the world as it is today, and you will still see them fleeing this country as they are now doing today.

Another current job killer is all of the talk about health care reform. Most businesses are very concerned about what the proposed health care bills will cost them in the future. Most businesses are waiting for the outcome of this fiasco before determining if they can afford new employees or not.

Drop this ridicules talk of reforming health care in a depressed economy, and the jobs will suddenly reappear out of thin air. We do not have the billions it will take to pay for this at the current time, and what other program of this size has government ever been successful at administering properly, and in the context that was promised? No additional costs or additions to the deficit from health care reform are only pipe dreams, that are not concurrent with the economic reality of today's world when you pay $35 for an aspirin in a hospital.

Why do all or most of the technological discoveries made by corporations working for the military eventually get turned over to private enterprise for their own private profits. First we pay for the R & D, and then we pay again when that technology is turned into a viable product by private companies, who in reality should be paying back the government (Taxpayer) for the R & D costs that they stand to make huge profits off of.

In ending, I must state that the jaws of life were developed by Hurst industries in the mid 1960's. The same company that still makes the best aftermarket gear shifters in the high performance automotive market.

They saw a need and developed a product using their own in house resources and funding WITHOUT help from the federal government. It just seems like a government produced product because of how it is currently used by almost every major fire and rescue unit in the world.

It was initially developed to extract race car drivers from severe wrecks that were more commonplace in the motor sports arena in the 1960's, as the Auto Racing industry was Hurst's main focus back in the 1960's.
 
Last edited:

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#18
The only jobs the government can create are government jobs themselves.
That statement is not one that leads to an accurate conclusion. Government actions do indeed affect the creation of jobs, and government inaction can aggressively depress job creation.

The governments main role back when it was conceived ...
Our government is not a static relic. It role at any point in time reflects the dynamic nature of its people; when people stop changing -- when life stops changing -- the government will stop changing.

From your perspective, it would seem that you must approve of the Bailouts of privately held companies by taxpayers, but to me that is criminal.
I won't comment on unrelated matters, but what I thing we can say that on matters of politics reasonable people disagree, so let's move past that (because political discussions aren't permitted in this portion of the forum) and just talk about the reality that people will encounter, untainted by what you think should be or what I think should be. Several of us have injected off-topic comments, so let's stop and just focus only on is likely to be -- because that's what is actually going to affect what most readers experience.

So putting us back on to the topic...

Some folks feel that they won't benefit. Some folks feel that they will benefit. The world won't collapse. Essential services won't be withheld. The manner in which non-essential services may change. People already have choices for accessing non-essential services. People will continue to have choices for accessing non-essential services. There is no entity outside the government that is better placed to determine a fair balance between what you want and what the people who disagree with you want.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#19
Two things as a member and citizen, I keep seeing. There is this constant combining of economy with politics. The only way economy and politics is integrated currently in the US are corporate campaign contributions to raise the likelihood of politicians voting for decreased regulation for their industry or to eliminate competition (like OTA).

The superficial arguments put forth to the public by the media and the political parties are just lies. The Republicans from 2001 through 2006 spent money like drunken sailors, far from the core belief they state. The Democrats calling themselves the "working man's party" passed as many banking and other deregulation bills as any Congress in the last 30 years. Neither party pays a moments attention to the talking points once sitting in office. This is why I don't call these discussions of economics political, because both parties keep the too big to fail, or what we used to call monopolies enabled. Too big to fail is just a way to make monopolies ok, because most people would not allow a monopoly without getting upset.

As a moderator, I have not seen the first name calling, partisan statements that were prevalent on previous discussions of this type.

I think politics should be discussed when it is so tied to a topic such as this one.

What I don't like are when I start hearing talking points from either side, name calling and use of words to inflame the other poster.

Nothing said so far has been more than people stating how they see it. Key part, how they see it, not how some party expert told them to act when confronted with the other opinion.

It was their thoughts and I encourage such thoughts.

I say in conclusion speaking as a mod, as long as one follows their position with an explanation why they feel that way, that is not aping a pundits inflammatory remarks.

You can't separate the future of OTA from the economy, how can you? Even if you believe we should be a totally market driven country, then that in itself means you can't leave the economy out of the discussion.

Then since the government does hold a good bit of control over the economy, that follows. But very important the key to a civil discussion, is to not speak about they or them, meaning a political party but validate you statements with how you see it yourself. Something that either party could take to the table to improve things as you see it.
 

Piggie

Super Moderator
#20
Capitalism works well until greed takes over, and then the greed spreads like a virus until everyone is affected by it. Capitalism made this country what it is today, but in order for Capitalism to function properly, it has to co-exist with honesty, and as we can see from the last presidential election, honesty is a thing of the past, and without it, Capitalism does not work !!

The Bush Administration can take some of the blame, but not the second Bush Administration. All of the Digital TV talk was just getting started near the end of his fathers term in office.
Capitalism is a very good system if as you say it's kept in check. If you need shoes and I open a shoe store, then I do you a service and provide myself with a job.

If I grow to the point where I am the only shoe store in the county and set the price of shoes and even making claims that the other smaller companies make inferior shoes, then I am too big to fail, or like I said the proper term is a monopoly.

True (to me) conservatives, such as William F Buckley even knew this. You can't let capitalism grow to the point of greed.

After all it's social programs that are blamed to be gamed by greedy people, either gaming the system or just not working. So exactly what do you call it when a totally free market system allows companies to gamble with the world's money, saying they are regulated, allowed to give A ratings to companies taking insane risks, then bailed out by the tax payers?

So what is the difference here? It's capitalism when times are good, the corporate socialism when times are bad (which they caused).

Either system capitalism or socialism can be gamed by playing in the loop holes, or at a corporate level to have laws passed to make it legal to game the system.

I say to everyone, what is the difference?

It boils down that either economic system unless safeguards are placed in law, will invite greed to tilt the system away from the working public.

=========

Sorry FOX I was just trying to make humor about your signature. I know how far back the digital transition goes. Mainly to the Comm Act of 1996, but has economic roots back into the 1980s. I apologize if you thought I was serious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top