The AM Forum

THE AM BULLETIN BOARD => QSO => Topic started by: W3RSW on June 07, 2007, 06:51:31 PM



Title: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: W3RSW on June 07, 2007, 06:51:31 PM
Hey what's with the latest ruling about being able to use the three left of Carlin's seven dirty words?  Hope it doesn't apply to ham radio any worse than the 'inadvertent' infractions now.  I guess it applies to commercial stations only?  TV not radio?


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: flintstone mop on June 07, 2007, 07:25:05 PM
Listen to that RAP crap and you can figure out that anything goes.
Allan Weiner, WBCQ, told me that nobody cares. The sky's the limit!
TV is always saying "SOB" or "Pissed Off". I haven't heard the "F" word yet.
It may be the Howard Stern type of shock jock that stirs up folks on the vulgarity issue, but apparently the foul words in music ain't no big thing.
Fred


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: KL7OF on June 07, 2007, 10:43:17 PM
I've always figured if Bart Simpson could say it on Fox, then it must be OK with the Supreme Court....


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: W1UJR on June 08, 2007, 07:43:31 AM
I've always figured if Bart Simpson could say it on Fox, then it must be OK with the Supreme Court....

I've always felt that the language allowed in the courtroom should be the language allowed on public media.
If the justices don't want to hear it in their courtroom, why should the public be imposed upon with a lower standard?

-Bruce 1UJR
Standing by on 7040.10


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: WA1GFZ on June 08, 2007, 08:39:31 AM
That's ok I'll watch even less TV. I hear a new tv runs $1800 and a digital cable connection around $75 a month. Hope the old RCA hangs in there I see no reason to spend that much to watch crap.


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: The Slab Bacon on June 08, 2007, 09:20:48 AM
That's ok I'll watch even less TV. I hear a new tv runs $1800 and a digital cable connection around $75 a month. Hope the old RCA hangs in there I see no reason to spend that much to watch crap.

$1800 for  HDTV television.........Geeezzzzeeee.............. And the $60 a month for basic cable service around here. To watch wall to wall commercials Screw that!! I dont even have high definition vision. Now almost blind in the left eye, I sure as hell wont buy one!! As far as the cable goes, If it wasnt for the YL, I'd have the cable taken out as well.

Most of the programming is friggin garbage, the cable companies add tons of their own commercials, It just isnt worth watching any more.
I could not bear to endure another crappy sitcom!!

As far as vulgarity goes, I am no prude and cuss as bad as anyone else and worse than some. However I really dont care to hear it coming out of my TV or over ham radio. We SHOULD have some standard of ethics in our lives. There is a time and a place for everything.

In the old days commedians had to have a lot more talent to make people laugh without using 4 letter words to do it!! Most of these new guys wouldnt make a pimple on the butts of their predecessors!!

Just my $.02 worth...........................And you know what they say about opinions ::)

                                                          The Slab Bacon
       
                                                     


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: WA1GFZ on June 08, 2007, 10:33:41 AM
Even our cable TV guide sucks with a flow of weirdo wanna bees.
You get 3 lines at the bottom and 3/4 of the screen feeding you racl third rate crap.
We watch the news and goof on the pill commecicals. It has become a famile event. How will this pill kill you.....Can't walk, can't crap, can't get lucky. Joints falling apart.


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on June 08, 2007, 02:07:53 PM
That's ok I'll watch even less TV. I hear a new tv runs $1800 and a digital cable connection around $75 a month. Hope the old RCA hangs in there I see no reason to spend that much to watch crap.

Depending on screen size and whether it’s LCD, plasma, DLP, name of brand, etc. the digital TV’s start around $500 and up. $1800 is relative to the specs, and feature and function set (hey, just like a Flex). Hook DVD or “Blue Ray” hardware to it, and watch movies in the comfort of your home with theater quality and sound. At my age, I don’t deprive immediate family and myself any of these material pleasures. Hey, if I don’t spend it ($$), all the relatives will fight over it when I’m gone.  Screw them; life’s too short; and I earned it.


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: AF9J on June 08, 2007, 03:10:05 PM
I have a question?  As you all know, the FCC is mandating all TV (Cable & Broadcast) to go High Definition, starting this year.  This makes all non-digital capable TVs basically obsolete, without a converter box.  From what I remember a few years ago, the prices being quoted for these converter boxes (and they weren't very common at the time), were ridiculously expensive (on the order of 300 dollars).  Is this still the case?  I don't watch the idiot box that much, and I'd hate to have to cough up money for a new TV, just because my old one is unusable for watching the news, and what little other TV I do watch.

Ellen - AF9J 


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on June 08, 2007, 03:32:39 PM
I haven't any pricing yet on the "converter box" other then "Between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, all U.S. households will be eligible to request up to two coupons, worth $40 each, to be used toward the purchase of digital-to-analog converter boxes".

Here's some info:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvlabels.html (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvlabels.html)

And the DTV Main Page with lots of info:
http://www.dtv.gov/ (http://www.dtv.gov/)


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on June 08, 2007, 03:42:54 PM
$1800 for  HDTV television.........Geeezzzzeeee.............. And the $60 a month for basic cable service around here. To watch wall to wall commercials Screw that!!         

Like any 'new' technology, the pricing on HDTV stuff will come down in time. As far as cable goes, I dumped that years ago and went with a Dish set up. Many more channels than I wanted or needed for just over half what I was paying for second tier cable service with a fraction of the channels.

I don't watch a lot of TV garbage anyhow, but Pete has the right idea - get a good system for movies, and enjoy. Big screen, nice audio system, Blu Ray....watch as many times as you want, no screaming kids or cellphone users in the theater unless you allow. After all, 'Real Life' seems to be the inspiration for today's TV trash...


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: AF9J on June 08, 2007, 04:19:25 PM
Thanks for the info Pete. :)

73,
Ellen - AF9J

I haven't any pricing yet on the "converter box" other then "Between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, all U.S. households will be eligible to request up to two coupons, worth $40 each, to be used toward the purchase of digital-to-analog converter boxes".

Here's some info:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvlabels.html (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvlabels.html)

And the DTV Main Page with lots of info:
http://www.dtv.gov/ (http://www.dtv.gov/)


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: W4EWH on June 08, 2007, 04:24:26 PM
I haven't any pricing yet on the "converter box" other then "Between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, all U.S. households will be eligible to request up to two coupons, worth $40 each, to be used toward the purchase of digital-to-analog converter boxes".

[snip]

I suggest everyone apply very early in the process: these coupons will be rationed after the first phase is over, so it's best to apply on January 2nd of 2008.

BTW, IMNSHO, HDTV will be the death knell for most of the carp programs on the air right now: with viewers able to see the actual faces instead of a low-res imitation, most of the shows will suddenly look like what they are - inane and insipid walk-throughs that could only work in a low-res medium.

I predict a return to the early days of TV: "Playhouse 90" type shows with capable talents performing actual plays. When they're not limited by the poor image quality of the NTSC video, first-rate actors will be able to enjoy a medium where their capabilities will stand out.

You heard it here first. YMMV.

73, Bill


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: Ed/KB1HYS on June 08, 2007, 04:32:32 PM
In My Opinion...

   TV is a huge waste of time.  We started out just limiting the time that we would let the kids watch TV.  Now we don't watch much at all (maybe 3 hrs a week?).

    It's amazing what you can get done, if you don't sit in front of that Brain-Sucking-Box... My son is 13, and he reads like a madman. He's read (on his own), Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Stephen King, plus a plethora of other books more his suitable for his age.  My daughter is 9 and also reads avidly. They are both very athletic and into several sports. Keeps them healthy (thank God). 

Personally I think that most of these ADD and ADHD kids got their brains programed by watching TV and Commercials for the first 5 years of their lives. (how their brains work and the pattern of commercial TV is oddly coincidental...)

All things considered, I think it gets easier to not watch it every passing season, as they can't seem to come up with a show that doesn't have sex, foul language, and/or violence as a basis.

and as far as cable, dish, Fiber go... like the song says, "57 channels and nothing on..."  besides, paying for something you can get for free is a waste. $60+ a month adds up quick, and thats usually just basic cable. Add in the extra channels-- and you could be over eighty or more.  and I know the story about people living places where they can only get 3 channels over the air etc... see the first paragraph.

I wouldn't buy any subscription radio services either, but thats another thread.

I swear if a company could market it, they'd find a way to get people to pay for the air they breath... and people would!!

wow that was an old Buzzard...


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: KF1Z on June 08, 2007, 04:57:39 PM
I have a question?  As you all know, the FCC is mandating all TV (Cable & Broadcast) to go High Definition, starting this year.  This makes all non-digital capable TVs basically obsolete, without a converter box.  From what I remember a few years ago, the prices being quoted for these converter boxes (and they weren't very common at the time), were ridiculously expensive (on the order of 300 dollars).  Is this still the case?  I don't watch the idiot box that much, and I'd hate to have to cough up money for a new TV, just because my old one is unusable for watching the news, and what little other TV I do watch.

Ellen - AF9J 


Digital and HDTV are two different things as far as I know...... but Yes, supposedly that'l happen.....

Of course the deadline WAS 2001, then 2003, then 2006....

But you're right, you'll need a converter....

I would think though... consumer electronics going the way they do....

WallyWorld will soon be selling a digital capable TV that will only cost a little more than the converter.....

Seems to happen that way....

"You need the black box to watch this new media!!! hurry and get yours now!!!!!.... It's only $49999...."

One year later......

"Here's a box that does it all!!   for    $100......"

You know the game........


Still.... I bet they all still have a "brightness" control.....
And, I bet it STILL won't work   :-)




Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: kf6pqt on June 08, 2007, 06:01:40 PM
I hear there is a plan in place to take over "5 meters" when analog TV broadcast ceases.

;)


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: N3DRB The Derb on June 08, 2007, 07:33:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc&mode=related&search=)

words are just words. They only have the power they do when people allow them to.



Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on June 08, 2007, 07:59:22 PM
Thanks for the info Pete. :)

73,
Ellen - AF9J

I haven't any pricing yet on the "converter box" other then "Between January 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, all U.S. households will be eligible to request up to two coupons, worth $40 each, to be used toward the purchase of digital-to-analog converter boxes".

Here's some info:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvlabels.html (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvlabels.html)

And the DTV Main Page with lots of info:
http://www.dtv.gov/ (http://www.dtv.gov/)

No problem. Lots of great info there to digest as we get closer to the deadline. I'm already on cable, so my transition should be transparent to me.


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: W4EWH on June 09, 2007, 01:30:52 AM
In My Opinion...

   TV is a huge waste of time.  We started out just limiting the time that we would let the kids watch TV.  Now we don't watch much at all (maybe 3 hrs a week?).

[snip]

All things considered, I think it gets easier to not watch it every passing season, as they can't seem to come up with a show that doesn't have sex, foul language, and/or violence as a basis.

[snip]

H.L. Mencken's famous quote comes to mind:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.".

As it happens, I was once a broadcast engineer, and you may take it from me that when the lights go off, so do the smiles. Television is not about quality or truth or public service: it's about selling soap, and those in charge of the industry will tell you that in very blunt terms if you scratch the surface of their PR.

Newton Minnow was right. It's still a vast wasteland.

Bill


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: Ed KB1HVS on June 09, 2007, 10:09:03 AM
 A court has to be the decider for us? If what you see and hear on the box sucks,just hit the switch. Its easy.............


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: Mike/W8BAC on June 09, 2007, 03:00:11 PM
Not that it really matters but The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in NY made this ruling. Long way to go to make it to The US Supreme Court.

Mike


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: flintstone mop on June 09, 2007, 05:16:36 PM
HD TV is off the subject.....but worth the $$$$ unbelievable pics and 5.1 sound

Fred


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: wa1knx on June 11, 2007, 07:06:03 PM
we have directv. we need it esp in vt where we have no cable, and no stations to tune. this is because we are surrounded by mountains!
I was lucky enuff to see the satellite. on subject, so all words are
fair game now eh.


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: W3RSW on June 13, 2007, 09:41:01 AM
1.) Yeah, thanks '8BAC, it was a NY ruling so will be interesting to see how it plays out.  Finally read the article in US News and World Report.

2.) Thread did get hijacked but I took the HD plunge last fall and it's spectacular. Guess INDH 1 is on satellite too, but the HDTV stuff on those types of channels, the travelogues, nature shows, NASA launching feeds, car and motorcycle repair and constructions shows... etc. , etc. are simply amazing.  Sports cameras are the ne-ultra-plus of the HD world too. First thing I watched was a tennis match, then football.  Could see people in the stands eating hotdogs with kraut.  Amazing detail  Watching reg. tv now is almost painful.  Anyway the extra $12 is well worth it to get the premium HD channels.  I can't wait for 2009 when all sigs. will have to be in HD.

  Too bad the AWA's ol' sets won't be able to receive w/o a converter, but then the raster on some (spinnin' wheels anybody?) can't copy NTSC either.  And I can't receive commercial FM, 42 to 50 Mcs on my Capehart Panamuse anymore.

My wife, not one too technically interested in electronics of any sort, simply said when we got the HD, "wow! it's like I just got glasses."   If ya hain't seen it yet other than department store feeds of "Finding Elmo" in regular NTSC displayed horribly on an HD set, then you have no idea what yer missing.   The price is coming down rapidly, particularly for smaller 32 to 36 in. sets.  Get one, see what your missing, then when you've saved your pennies, gotten the big 50" in. plus, you can put the smaller one in the bedroom :)


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: wa1knx on June 13, 2007, 06:16:55 PM
I used to like to tv dx, big vanguard up high fed with hardline. no
more I guess in 2009, but till then I suppose I could tv dx to hear
distant naughty words ;;


Title: Re: Supreme Court on-air language decision
Post by: N3DRB The Derb on June 13, 2007, 11:09:56 PM
you can still dx with that set up, it will just be digital. you'll either have a signal or not. Over the air ants work great with HD, the higher and bigger the better.

I have a big RCA on a eave mount wih a mast mounted preamp and i get good HD reception off th air from DC with a 2,000 ft mountain in the way. I use a
thing called a eyeTV 500 that hooks into my mac G5 and turns it into a HD TV. Uses the 22" LCD for display. So I can see the hdtv and surf and send mail at
the same time, and also works like a DVR so I can record any content.
AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands