Looking for signers

[chiggerbit]

Please consider signing this petition. (I hope this is ok to post here, Jeff.) I refuse to pay for cable, and I am soooooo tired of having sports shoved down my throat every weekend with over-the-air broadcasting. This option would be so wonderful.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.multicasting.com/">www.multicasting.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>With the transition to Digital Television (DTV), viewers will receive higher quality signals and a wide range of new programming. DTV allows broadcasters to split their digital television signal into multiple streams – called multicasting – which will enhance program options for viewers and encourage broadcasters to create more local content. <br><br>That means viewers can receive three, four, five, even six channels from each local station – all free of charge from your over-the-air television broadcaster. You might get a channel for 24-hour local weather, another with foreign language simulcast, and still another with expanded coverage of local news, entertainment or even high school athletics. <br><br>But you won’t get these choices if the cable monopolies and satellite providers get their way. They’re worried that free multicasting content might compete with the cable networks they own themselves. <br><br>Congress should ensure that cable and satellite companies don’t shortchange America’s television viewers by keeping their customers from enjoying all the benefits of multicasting. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 1/26/06 1:16 pm<br></i>

[marykmusic]

Ummm... I think it's more worthwhile to get people to turn OFF their televisions. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

[Sepka]

Why on earth would I want even *more* local television? In theory I'm in favour of removing most of the restrictive covenants from television broadcasting, and letting the market sort things out. The problem from my perspective is that there are currently laws in place to protect the markets of the local affiliates, no matter poor their service. I want to be able to subscribe via cable or satellite to the network anchor stations such as KTLA or WNBC and not have to put up with 90 minute local "news" shows that contain five minutes of actual news, or having a professional sporting event pre-empted for a high school match. Until that day comes about, I'm most heartily in favour of anything that hurts local broadcasters. I'll certainly be writing to my representatives on this one!<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Some of us can't afford cable, sepka, and this alternative would offer choices to those of us who have no use for couch potato sports shows, "reality" shows, etc. Because many in this area here (which is loaded with the elderly, average age in the upper fifties) are handicapped and more or less trapped in their homes, television is often their only way "out" of the house. I myself would dearly love to be able to watch an outdated movie or a documentary on a Sunday afternoon instead of the Vikings or Rams or whatever. Even if I could afford cable, I would resent having to pay for all that Faux News, CNN, etc., which my money would then be supporting. This is about opening up choices for all, not limiting choices for others because "it's good for them" or because you personally don't care for the commercials. As for your attitude about your local news, not sure where you live but around here there is often more informative and somewhat less partisan news than that provided by major media "news" programs. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 1/27/06 11:00 am<br></i>