dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to elray

Re: You can lead a horse...

Not every one has a huge flat screen. I know a guy who can just barely afford to pay for cable each month. After food and bills, he doesn't have much left over, so he's still using his old CRT TV rather than going out and buying an expensive flat screen TV.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

1 edit

If you can "barely afford to pay for cable", then you shouldn't have it at all - for you surely aren't managing your finances properly, and you are unprepared for the next fiscal crisis that will cross your path.

Every person I know in the aforementioned category you brought up, has more than one flat-screen TV, and those are second-generation purchases.

My fellow miserly friends I know who still have tubes, simply don't see the point of HD, and are waiting for their CRT's to die before they spend their hard-earned money on a replacement, though I still question their desire for cable. Most of them have HD STB's, which down-convert the HD signal to composite, the result of last year's $1 DVR special. But even though they are wise enough to know to watch the HD channels, I don't think any care for spectator sports.



OneTen

@207.237.90.x

2 recommendations

so naive

did it occur to you that there are very poor people that need a tv cause they cant afford a pc or tablet and use tv as a primary means of cheap entertainment and information like when the next wild fire or drought hits LA. just because one is poor doesnt mean he doesnt deserve to watch the biggest sporting event of the year. there are places in the world where a village gathers around a TV to watch the super bowl. just cause u may live in a more affluent community like santa monica, you're clearly forgetting those in poor areas of the city/county. whatever the case time warner screwed up big time on this one.

said by elray:

If you can "barely afford to pay for cable", then you shouldn't have it at all - for you surely aren't managing your finances properly, and you are unprepared for the next fiscal crisis that will cross your path.

Every person I know in the aforementioned category you brought up, has more than one flat-screen TV, and those are second-generation purchases.

My fellow miserly friends I know who still have tubes, simply don't see the point of HD, and are waiting for their CRT's to die before they spend money on a replacement. Most of them have HD STB's, which down-convert the HD signal to composite, the result of last year's $1 DVR special. But even though they are wise enough to know to watch the HD channels, I don't think any care for spectator sports.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to Rekrul

Re: You can lead a horse...

Anyone who can't afford a decent TV shouldn't be paying for cable!



IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
reply to elray

I still use a SD tube TV in my living room (Toshiba 27"), I have my DirecTV Genie hooked up to it and it tunes to the HD channels by default. I just deal with the letter boxing that comes with the widescreen programming on an older set. As long as it works, just use it until it dies. I have two other TVs, both of them HD.

I have older gaming systems I like to play. I just don't get to play them right now with grandma in the living room and with the carpal tunnel.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to elray

If you can "barely afford to pay for cable", then you shouldn't have it at all - for you surely aren't managing your finances properly, and you are unprepared for the next fiscal crisis that will cross your path.

As much as people love to bitch about their cable bills, cable is still a very cheap form of entertainment, relative to the cost of food, housing, and other vices folks might involve themselves in when they're bored.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to OneTen

Re: so naive

Access to information about wild fires and droughts does not require cable TV.

If you're "very poor", you do not need cable.

We are not affluent, nor do we live in an affluent neighborhood. Nice try. We just don't live above our means.

I work with the poor on a near-daily basis. Most are victims of public "education", after which it is a major battle to train them the fundamentals of personal finance and household budgeting, but we reach a few of them.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to djrobx

Re: You can lead a horse...

Indeed, it is, for the average household.

But not for the very poor.

That idle time would be better spent on education and a second or third job.



IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
reply to elray

Re: so naive

The public schools here are broken, if I had kids, I'd send them to Catholic school.

There is no way I'd send my kids to the public schools here in Springfield.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

My friends who work for the government all send their kids to private schools, yet claim they're underpaid as state employees, and whine for every tax increase.

When it comes time to pay their tremendous property taxes, they ask me: "Where does it go?"

When I ask them why they don't send their children to the local public school, they do their best hand-wringing dance, and mumble something about culture.

The public schools aren't "broken". That would imply they can be fixed. They need to be closed, to hold a "going out of business" sale, and we should simply contract their function to private firms, and let parents decide where their kids go to school. It won't solve every problem, but it will go a long way towards actually educating, not indoctrinating the children, so they might have a chance at an economic future.



IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Our schools here have tenured teachers that care more about their paychecks than the success of their students.

I went through the public school system in Iowa and at the time, Iowa had one of the lowest pay rates for teachers in the country but one of the best educational systems in the country. So I can tell you first hand that by not having high teacher pay you weed out the teacher that want a fat paycheck because they'll look towards other career paths instead of teaching in that state. I had some wonderful teachers going through school, I can count the rattlesnakes I've had on one hand.

I remember one dedicated teacher that helped me catch up on spelling and language arts which I was falling behind on. Ever find those dedicated teachers in corrupt school districts in big cities like Springfield (MA) and Boston. This teacher was in the College Community School District, which is a very good public school system in Iowa. I ended up graduating with honors from the Cedar Rapids Community School District and with a high GPA. But there was a point where I was falling behind and they intervened. But those big city school systems would just let a kid like me fall further and further behind and the only option would be to drop out, no wonder these school systems are dropout factories. Money doesn't fix schools, accountability does. Teachers need to be made terminable at will allowing them to be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to elray

Re: You can lead a horse...

Everybody needs some idle-time...

I still have and use a CRT TV, yes it looks bad - colours are going, and it is SD... lol

But it is what I can afford, and it works
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: so naive

It depends where you are. Some teachers are really dedicated, some aren't. Some aren't very dedicated, and still do a good job teaching (I've had a couple of those, although they're not that common). Some school systems are excellent, some aren't. Not all public schools are a mess, but many are. The city schools are getting screwed the most with charter schools, but that's a whole different story. What we should have is more uniformity, both in the curriculum and standards, and in the per student funding. Some places have way better funding than others.



Horsecrap

@verizon.net
reply to elray

Re: You can lead a horse...

Who are you to judge who should or shouldn't subscribe to cable? Topic here is Time Warner Cables failure to deliver a reliable signal.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to BiggA

Re: so naive

LA Schools spend $30K per student and yet, "graduates" only 65%, and many are functionally illiterate. It isn't a matter of money or standards.

Its the fact that it is run by the government, which has no interest in the outcome, only perpetuating government.

Sure, there are a good number of dedicated teachers, but they aren't allowed to teach, because that isn't the purpose of public school.

We'd all be much better off, junking the entire public system, and replacing it with vouchers, wherein parents could choose where their children attend, and give them a wide breadth of private options, including online, home schooling, and trade schools. Good teachers have nothing to fear.


Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to BiggA

Re: You can lead a horse...

said by BiggA:

Anyone who can't afford a decent TV shouldn't be paying for cable!

Right, because the world has universally decided that only large screen LCD TVs are "decent"...

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to elray

Re: so naive

God no. We need a system that works, not to get rid of the system. The systems should be state run, like Texas. Just not exactly like Texas, since they do some pretty whacky sh*t with our textbooks.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to Rekrul

Re: You can lead a horse...

If you're so poor you can't drop a couple hundred bucks on a decent TV, you shouldn't be spending a thousand bucks or more a year on cable. Unfortunately, people are stupid.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to BiggA

Re: so naive

Ours is much far wackier, but on the other side of the spectrum that schools have no business "teaching".

You admit that the state-run school is out of control, but you still want to cede your sovereignty to the government and roll the dice with your kids' education?

We've had generations of "reform", and it only gets worse with each passing year. There is no "fix".


Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to BiggA

Re: You can lead a horse...

said by BiggA:

If you're so poor you can't drop a couple hundred bucks on a decent TV, you shouldn't be spending a thousand bucks or more a year on cable. Unfortunately, people are stupid.

Who are you to decide what qualifies as a "decent" TV?

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Definitely not anything less than 720p for a secondary TV, that's for sure. And 1080p for something you actually sit down and watch. HD was widely available by 2008, it's now 2014.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to elray

Re: so naive

So the town government isn't the government? What are you smoking? Right now, AFAIK, in every state except Texas, schools are run by individual towns. Which are governments. They just have a wide variation in how good of a job they are able to do in educating.

We have to have a strong public education system in order to have an educated nation and a strong economy. There is no other way.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

I don't smoke, thanks. Do you?
Your assumption is misinformed. I won't claim its the result of public school, but I'm tempted....

No, "in every state", schools are not (all) run by individual towns, unless you consider "greater" Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City to be "towns". The "town" of Los Angeles operates a school district that spends over $25 Billion annually on some 600,000+ students.

I agree we need an educated populace, but we don't have one, and the trendline is going further downhill with each passing year.

Why would you want to continue to punish children and force them to attend the government monopoly school, rather than giving them a choice?


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Fine. Cities. You're splitting hairs, because they are still local control, as opposed to state level control.

People can go wherever they want... no one forces them to go to public school, but we should have a strong public education system, since most people don't have the big dough to send their kids to a private school.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Not meaning to splitting hairs, just addressing your AFAIK statement which appears to be misinformed.

Regardless, it doesn't matter to me, whether it is the "state", "State", "town", "city", County, Parish, or "district" as we have here.
All of them need to be abolished. The occasional exceptional district school can reform itself as a competitive, private entity.

People are forced to send their kids to school.

In the case of LAUSD, they're spending $25K-30K of our tax money per student per year.

Why would you oppose giving a subset of those funds as vouchers to parents who "don't have the big dough", to choose a private (secular, if you must insist) school for their child?


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to Horsecrap

Re: You can lead a horse...

Ultimately, it is the choice of the individual whether he wants to spend his last dime on cable-tv, an american car, designer jeans, a lavish party, or any other folly.

But if we are truly concerned about and compassionate for the poor, it is a moral (you remember those, right?) imperative to educate and guide them towards a healthier financial future.

That includes "judging", as you say, those habits which are wasteful and detrimental.

Sorry if that offends you, but the free-lunch mentality is not sustainable.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to elray

Re: so naive

No one is forcing anyone to go to public schools. They can go to a religious school, or a private school, which many do. I went to public school, and I don't really like the idea of private schools, but this is America and people can do whatever they want.

However, the backbone of a good education system HAS to be a good public school system.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

People cannot "do whatever they want", much as I think, in America, they should be so allowed.

The law requires that you send your child to school. If you live in a lousy neighborhood, in a lousy school district, your child is forced to attend that school and reap the consequences.

I'd rather we remove compulsory education and leave the responsibility solely to parents, to pay for it. But the law in 50 states remains that the taxpayers fund schooling, and children must attend - and apparently you prefer to leave them with no choice but to waste 12 years in the government monopoly system.


BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

People can choose to send their kids to private schools. WHAT? Eliminating compulsory schooling is INSANE. You'd have people with no education at all, not even basic high school!


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

No, people can NOT choose to send their kids to private schools. They are required, by law, to send their children to school, but only one option is funded.

That's why we have millions of poor kids held captive by the government monopoly.
And the outcome from that equation is what is insane. We'd be better off without.

While I'd rather parents didn't have kids if they can't afford to take care of them, and I'd rather we didn't have compulsory education, nor have the public paying for it, so long as we do - the children should not be punished for the politics of the adults, and they should not be forced to attend schools run by the government.