Click here to get twenty dollars off Webhosting at DreamHost
Powered by MaxBlogPress 

Staying Informed In Spite Of Digital Television



July 12th, 2009 13:02 pm | by Ed |

While most people have hailed this new age of digital only television, I see it as a step backwards about 60 years or so into the middle of the 20th century. Why? Because while digital tv means lots more content and channels for most people, for me it means an end to broadcast television.

You see, I live in a mostly wooded, hills type area around 75 to 80 miles from the nearest tv station. I once was able to get a passable (though far from perfect) signal from this station. It made it possible to get current local weather updates, especially in storms, that are simply not available online in the level of local detail that I'm used to.

weather stationThis morning I saw something on sale that ought to at least help. It's a Thermor BIOS Home Weather Station that, while it doesn't have doppler radar, it does provide a lot of information that will make up for some of what the digital television age has taken from me.

Living in Northeast Arkansas like I do, having current weather information is pretty important, especially in Tornado season. (generally from February to Late August for the highest probability for the worst storms, though they can happen at ANY time of year!). Until this "big switch", I was able to count on KAIT (local channel 8 .) in Jonesboro for that information. They have a fairly decent weather staff and would interrupt regular programming for weather updates without hesitation. If a storm got bad enough, they'd drop regular programming (and commercials!) completely and go full time weather coverage until the situation was over.

It's only been a month or so since the switchover and I already miss that weather coverage. I blame the FCC and Congress for not allowing digital tv to have enough power to reach the same places that the old analog signals did. Another FINE example of how things like this should be dealt with by techs that know WTF they're talking about instead of politicians and bureaucrats that wouldn't know a clue if you painted it on their forehead!

Oh, and for those who suggest that I get satellite or cable television... The answer to that is not only "No", but "Hell No!". I firmly believe that broadcast television should be free and I REFUSE to pay a monthly fee for something that should be free.

Technorati Tags: congress, fcc, big switch, digital tv, idiots, analog tv, strong analog, loss of signal, weak digital, weather coverage, no signal

Be Sociable, Share!
  • email
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Want to link to this post?
Just copy this code and paste it on your site where you want the link to appear:

4 Comments

  1. Anonymous on 14.07.2009 at 11:24 (Reply)


    TV is a luxury and should be paid for monthly. Anything that’s a luxury shouldn’t be free.

    1. Ed on 14.07.2009 at 13:23 (Reply)


      Spoken like a true big-city-dwelling-employee-of-a-cable-or-satellite-network. Living in a rural area like I (and many others) do, things aren’t quite so cut and dried. Where I live there is ONE broadcast tv station. It’s far enough away that in analog days you needed a good antenna to get even a passable picture. Now that it’s converted to digital, the area that can receive it’s signal has shrunk considerably.

      And before you assume that I’m merely looking for entertainment, think again. Even before the conversion the only use I had for television was for LOCAL news and weather information. If I decide to watch a movie I’ve got plenty of titles on DVD and VHS to choose from.

      Living in a rural area one comes to depend on *LOCAL* television news and weather information, especially in Tornado season, to stay up to date on new developments. Television stations available on cable or satellite systems seldom (if ever) carry stations that provide local coverage for rural areas since they’re almost always located in large cities and only focus on their own locale.

      Therefore even if I was inclined to get (and able to afford) cable or satellite tv I still would not get the LOCAL coverage that I need.

      Perhaps before making statements like yours you should spend a year living in a rural area about 85 miles from the nearest television station while living on a fixed income that does not permit such luxuries as cable or satellite tv. I guarantee that it’ll change the perspective of any thinking human.

    2. May on 14.07.2009 at 13:35 (Reply)


      filthy money grubbing idiot! i wonder if you’ll say the same thing when obamabinasswipe decides to put in an air tax that you have to pay in advance before being allowed to breathe next year?

      stupid little corporate suckup!

      is that the ceo of comcast’s nutsack i see on your chin?

      i thought so

      1. Ed on 14.07.2009 at 20:06 (Reply)


        Don’t hold back, tell us how you REALLY feel! ;-D

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.