A few weeks ago I posted a rant about the bizarre and often illogical demands by unnamed Postal workers for the relocation of many rural mail boxes in which I said :-“There is a strong possibility that this is just the thin end of the wedge, rural mail delivery will become a thing of the past, instead of one vehicle traveling a daily route with your mail we will have hundreds of folks driving down the road to get their mail from those “community” mailboxes, or even worse in to town to the post office to get our mail.”
It seems that I may well have been correct on that one, I did not know at the time that recommendations to lift the moratorium on rural post office closures had already be made. The Canada Post Corporation Strategic Review as presented Dec 2008 say this in its Executive Summary :-
“A review of the moratorium on rural post office closures is overdue. A new and more explicit mechanism should be developed to replace the moratorium with a clear set of rules and procedural guidelines that would both safeguard and respect the postal service needs of rural Canada but also allow Canada Post a degree of flexibility to deal with emergent issues in providing postal services in rural areas while respecting the service needs and expectations of rural Canadians.”
That sounds like typical double speak for lets close some rural post offices to me! I find it interesting that I can find no mention of the Senate report BEYOND FREEFALL: HALTING RURAL POVERTY – (available in PDF format here) wherein “The committee recommends that the federal government work with provincial, territorial and municipal governments to identify ways in which a range of existing and new services might be delivered through existing rural infrastructure points such as rural post offices.
They then go on to say:-
“Mail delivery to the end-of-lane – basically to a roadside box at the end of a property owner’s lane or driveway – has its origins at the turn of the 20th century. In many areas, these houses were once on quiet country roads. Now, these same residences are directly adjacent to relatively busy streets and highways, where there is a serious and likely potential for accidents and injury both to the people delivering the mail and to passing motorists. The Advisory Panel believes that the safety reviews undertaken by Canada Post were necessary and likely overdue, given the changes in traffic speed and road usage that have evolved over time. The government should permit Canada Post the latitude to give serious consideration to the efficacy and viability of maintaining this mode of mail delivery. “
Now that sounds like double speak for lets do away with rural delivery altogether, and by the way we will provide rural residents with a box at the nearest Post Office which has just been closed!!
This belief is reinforced by their “Recommendations” which says:-
“The government should replace the moratorium on rural post office closings with a new approach founded on a more realistic and practical definition of ‘rural’ and in the context of an updated and more operational rural policy.
The government should declare that the rural post is part of the USO, (Universal Service Obligation) and service expectations for rural Canada should be incorporated into the new Service Charter. “
It looks to me that our “Service Expectations” had best not be too high! I am pleased to hear that some municipalities are raising these issues with the minister at the AMO conference this week but my expectations of any change in attitude towards rural services coming out of those conversations is not high either.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Democracy in the Amphitheatre.
As promised here are my impressions of the presentation sponsored by the OS Greens last Thursday at Kelso Park. This has been cross posted at Democracy Under Fire where you will find further information and opinion about our Parliamentary Democracy and related subjects.
.........................
Recently I had the pleasure of hearing Elizabeth May speak to the subject of government accountability and the demise of our democracy in recent times. It was a pleasure to listen to a leader of a political party, abet one who has yet to be seated in the House of Commons, speak openly about the undemocratic amount of control that political partys and their leaders have upon the workings of our parliament.
It was refreshing to hear a national political figure speak about the need for less power for the PMO and more for the individual MP and thus “the people”. It was perhaps fitting that the venue where she spoke of us reaching a turning point in our democracy was an outdoor amphitheatre reminiscent of the places in Greece where democracy was born.
She spoke of our political system reaching a new low with leaders being attacked by slick campaigns aimed not at policy or proposals, but designed to make our citizens so disgusted with either the attacker or their target that they do not bother to vote. She spoke of regularly sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons during question period and observing the orchestrated heckling and name calling and asked if perhaps the televised portions should have a warning as not suitable for children! Which given the childish behavior of those involved could stop the MPs from viewing their own antics?
Her presentation focused upon the recent decline of cooperation and respect amongst or representatives in Ottawa, she recounted a time not that long ago, when as a aide to the Environment Minister of the day she could recall that even under a majority government cooperation and consensus were the norm and rarely did a bill reach the first reading stage until it had been broadly agreed to by all partys.
There was no rhetoric about the Green Party being the answer to all these things, there was in fact very little “political maneuvering” in her words but simply her opinion of where our democracy stands at the present time, that being “about as low as it can get”. We can but hope that she is correct on that one, something that we will see perhaps change for the better after the next election, coming she believes in November shortly after parliament resumes in the fall.
My impression of Ms May upon hearing her speak to the audience of 200 or so was not of an arrogant “I am the leader” politician that we are so used to hearing, but of a knowledgeable and caring individual who truly is worried about the way in which things are being done by our current government. A person who genuinely believes, as I do, that our very democracy is in jeopardy if some changes are not made in the very near future, and incidentally who still believes that individuals, herself included, can make a difference.
Will her presence in the HoC after November have a massive impact upon the democratic process, hardly. Would the presence of herself and a few more honest and open individuals who are equally concerned about our democratic process be a good place to start, you bet. As she said the only way to change things is to elect individuals who realize that their boss is the people who elect them, if that happens to be “a Green” then that too may be a good thing.
It was interesting that upon returning home and picking up the local newspaper I read that Bill Murdoch, the long time MPP for the riding where she spoke, had in a recent interview said “We don’t have a representative democracy any more, we have a party democracy. As soon as you get elected whatever party you belong to they think they own you………That’s not the way it was meant to be.”
They are both correct, these two are the sort of representatives we need, as Ms May said, the question to ask those candidates during the next election is “for whom do you work”, but remember that SOME will just tell you what you want to hear, or what they have been told to tell you, rather than discuss the possibility that the “party” is the puppet master!
.........................
Recently I had the pleasure of hearing Elizabeth May speak to the subject of government accountability and the demise of our democracy in recent times. It was a pleasure to listen to a leader of a political party, abet one who has yet to be seated in the House of Commons, speak openly about the undemocratic amount of control that political partys and their leaders have upon the workings of our parliament.
It was refreshing to hear a national political figure speak about the need for less power for the PMO and more for the individual MP and thus “the people”. It was perhaps fitting that the venue where she spoke of us reaching a turning point in our democracy was an outdoor amphitheatre reminiscent of the places in Greece where democracy was born.
She spoke of our political system reaching a new low with leaders being attacked by slick campaigns aimed not at policy or proposals, but designed to make our citizens so disgusted with either the attacker or their target that they do not bother to vote. She spoke of regularly sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons during question period and observing the orchestrated heckling and name calling and asked if perhaps the televised portions should have a warning as not suitable for children! Which given the childish behavior of those involved could stop the MPs from viewing their own antics?
Her presentation focused upon the recent decline of cooperation and respect amongst or representatives in Ottawa, she recounted a time not that long ago, when as a aide to the Environment Minister of the day she could recall that even under a majority government cooperation and consensus were the norm and rarely did a bill reach the first reading stage until it had been broadly agreed to by all partys.
There was no rhetoric about the Green Party being the answer to all these things, there was in fact very little “political maneuvering” in her words but simply her opinion of where our democracy stands at the present time, that being “about as low as it can get”. We can but hope that she is correct on that one, something that we will see perhaps change for the better after the next election, coming she believes in November shortly after parliament resumes in the fall.
My impression of Ms May upon hearing her speak to the audience of 200 or so was not of an arrogant “I am the leader” politician that we are so used to hearing, but of a knowledgeable and caring individual who truly is worried about the way in which things are being done by our current government. A person who genuinely believes, as I do, that our very democracy is in jeopardy if some changes are not made in the very near future, and incidentally who still believes that individuals, herself included, can make a difference.
Will her presence in the HoC after November have a massive impact upon the democratic process, hardly. Would the presence of herself and a few more honest and open individuals who are equally concerned about our democratic process be a good place to start, you bet. As she said the only way to change things is to elect individuals who realize that their boss is the people who elect them, if that happens to be “a Green” then that too may be a good thing.
It was interesting that upon returning home and picking up the local newspaper I read that Bill Murdoch, the long time MPP for the riding where she spoke, had in a recent interview said “We don’t have a representative democracy any more, we have a party democracy. As soon as you get elected whatever party you belong to they think they own you………That’s not the way it was meant to be.”
They are both correct, these two are the sort of representatives we need, as Ms May said, the question to ask those candidates during the next election is “for whom do you work”, but remember that SOME will just tell you what you want to hear, or what they have been told to tell you, rather than discuss the possibility that the “party” is the puppet master!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Municipality of …. Norm Sterling?
“The time has come to embrace municipal party politics as part of a major reform to give greater purpose and direction to Ontario’s major cities, former Conservative cabinet minister Norm Sterling says. “
It would seem that the Ontario PCs are not much different from the federal lot, they all seem to believe that political partisanship equates with “greater purpose and direction” but fail to see that it only holds true if said believers have total control and no regard for the views of others. It is true that in SOME cases “ They each have their own little fiefdoms, and they tend to those fiefdoms. Councillors do not have an interest in the whole, only in their own bailiwick,” but how pray tell is that any different from our Provincial or Federal representatives? How will bringing another layer of opinion and political pressure (quite probably from outside the local area) to municipal decision making improve the process?
Fortunately there are some within the Ontario PCs with more insight than Mr Sterling, MPP Bill Murdoch who invariably puts his constituents first before party politics has come out strongly against this idea. I am not sure how much impact Bill will have upon discussions on this as it seems, as is all too typical with our political partys, he has been previously kicked out for speaking when not agreeing with the party line. Please note that “Sterling says the views he is expressing are his alone, and he has not discussed his vision for change with new Ontario Conservative party leader Tim Hudak. Still, he plans to do so and, at the very least, push his caucus to undertake a review if his party comes to power.” The party has said “This is two MPPs individual opinions, the party has no position on this.”
That all said this sort of idea must be quickly and thoroughly debunked before the idea takes hold. Municipal politics remains one of the few places where citizens have at least some chance of being heard and having an impact upon decisions, the interference of political partys into the process can only make for MORE entrenched positions and less effort at compromise and agreement. Let us at least try and keep party politics out of municipal council chambers because if Provincial and Federal legislatures are any example party politics is increasingly detracting from our democracy not adding to it.
One final note here:- I must recognize, as must any who would consider this proposal, that there is no comparison between (say) Toronto Municipal Council operations and typical rural municipality with 4 or 5 councilors, or for that matter with Mr Murdoch’s home city of Owen Sound’s Council. But even so I cannot see how more “politics” can help even a large city be more efficient and accountable to the citizens for whom they work!
Cross posted at Democracy Under Fire
It would seem that the Ontario PCs are not much different from the federal lot, they all seem to believe that political partisanship equates with “greater purpose and direction” but fail to see that it only holds true if said believers have total control and no regard for the views of others. It is true that in SOME cases “ They each have their own little fiefdoms, and they tend to those fiefdoms. Councillors do not have an interest in the whole, only in their own bailiwick,” but how pray tell is that any different from our Provincial or Federal representatives? How will bringing another layer of opinion and political pressure (quite probably from outside the local area) to municipal decision making improve the process?
Fortunately there are some within the Ontario PCs with more insight than Mr Sterling, MPP Bill Murdoch who invariably puts his constituents first before party politics has come out strongly against this idea. I am not sure how much impact Bill will have upon discussions on this as it seems, as is all too typical with our political partys, he has been previously kicked out for speaking when not agreeing with the party line. Please note that “Sterling says the views he is expressing are his alone, and he has not discussed his vision for change with new Ontario Conservative party leader Tim Hudak. Still, he plans to do so and, at the very least, push his caucus to undertake a review if his party comes to power.” The party has said “This is two MPPs individual opinions, the party has no position on this.”
That all said this sort of idea must be quickly and thoroughly debunked before the idea takes hold. Municipal politics remains one of the few places where citizens have at least some chance of being heard and having an impact upon decisions, the interference of political partys into the process can only make for MORE entrenched positions and less effort at compromise and agreement. Let us at least try and keep party politics out of municipal council chambers because if Provincial and Federal legislatures are any example party politics is increasingly detracting from our democracy not adding to it.
One final note here:- I must recognize, as must any who would consider this proposal, that there is no comparison between (say) Toronto Municipal Council operations and typical rural municipality with 4 or 5 councilors, or for that matter with Mr Murdoch’s home city of Owen Sound’s Council. But even so I cannot see how more “politics” can help even a large city be more efficient and accountable to the citizens for whom they work!
Cross posted at Democracy Under Fire
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Elizabeth May in Owen Sound on Thursday.
For those who have not heard about it there is a chance to hear Elizabeth speak about “Making Our Government Accountable” at a public meeting sponsored by the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Green Party at the Kelso Park Ampitheatre. Thursday, Aug 6 at Kelso Park, Owen Sound, 7-9PM.
Should be so much better than sitting in a stuffy hall, what a great venue, but remember its outdoor seating so bring a cushion for stone benches or a lawn chair. It will be moved to the Picnic Shelter if rain threatens.
It takes a lot to drag me out of my rural hideaway but I am going to try and attend this one and hope to blog about it all later in the week. Should be great fodder for my blog about Canadian Democracy judging from her recent interview on CKNX. (available on a podcast for a couple more days yet)
Stay tuned!
Should be so much better than sitting in a stuffy hall, what a great venue, but remember its outdoor seating so bring a cushion for stone benches or a lawn chair. It will be moved to the Picnic Shelter if rain threatens.
It takes a lot to drag me out of my rural hideaway but I am going to try and attend this one and hope to blog about it all later in the week. Should be great fodder for my blog about Canadian Democracy judging from her recent interview on CKNX. (available on a podcast for a couple more days yet)
Stay tuned!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Rural High Speed, or not!
Regular readers, all two of you, will know that out here in the boonies we struggle with dialup internet at less than optimum speed often connecting at or below 24 Kbs. One would think then that I would jump at the chance to connect to high speed via wireless as soon as it became available. Make no mistake I checked it out but at current cost its totally out of my league!
What I find a little puzzling and somewhat annoying is that the “contracted” supplier, who presumably was the recipient of most of the $100,000 funding from the county AND the $500,000 from the province seems to be not fulfilling the promises made by the county when initiating this process. Most notably these two statements can be found on the Grey County web site “Rural residents and businesses of Grey County are currently under served by affordable high speed Internet.” and “ Community rollouts are designed to reduce customer’s installation time and cost with installation costs as low as $99.00. “.
Let us compare that with the latest from Everus. “Through a competitive process we chose a vendor to provide broadband service in the project area. The vendor chosen was Everus Communications.” Here is an extract from a recent communication and a summary of their pricing:-
“……. there has been a change to the contract pricing offered by Everus Communications. We are no longer able to offer the previous price promotion on a 3-year, 2 year or 1-year term. Due to company restructuring and high equipment costs we will now be requiring the installation costs covered up front ………. Our current pricing for a new installation is $499 (what happened to that $99 installation cost?) which includes the set-up of service, installation and wiring to your first PC or router. …………..We will require a payment for the testing (to see if it is even feasible at my location) by credit card for $49.99……..”
Then the monthly cost look like this:-
The basic connection “suitable for infrequent use, ie, email and web research medium file download/uploads, photos, etc very limited video and music sharing” is $49.99 a month ($600 a year plus tax) for a max speed of 1.5Mb/s.
The mid range connection “perfect for medium use large file downloads/uploads video and music sharing permitted excellent reliability” (so what does that make the basic connection, unreliable?) is $59.99 a month ($720 a year plus tax) for a max speed of 3.0Mb/s .
The “optimal service for heavy use supports the most demanding file download/upload requirements best video and music sharing” is $84.99 per month (over $1000 per year plus tax!) for max speed of 5.0 Mb/s
When you add the cost of a 40’ to 60’ tower that most rural users would have to install at their own cost in order to get “direct line of sight” to the nearest transmitter location then I for one do not call this affordable!
To then have to shell out $50 to get told whether or not a reliable connection can even be established from your location was, for me, the final insult. Seems I will be plodding along at my usual speed…… slowly!
What I find a little puzzling and somewhat annoying is that the “contracted” supplier, who presumably was the recipient of most of the $100,000 funding from the county AND the $500,000 from the province seems to be not fulfilling the promises made by the county when initiating this process. Most notably these two statements can be found on the Grey County web site “Rural residents and businesses of Grey County are currently under served by affordable high speed Internet.” and “ Community rollouts are designed to reduce customer’s installation time and cost with installation costs as low as $99.00. “.
Let us compare that with the latest from Everus. “Through a competitive process we chose a vendor to provide broadband service in the project area. The vendor chosen was Everus Communications.” Here is an extract from a recent communication and a summary of their pricing:-
“……. there has been a change to the contract pricing offered by Everus Communications. We are no longer able to offer the previous price promotion on a 3-year, 2 year or 1-year term. Due to company restructuring and high equipment costs we will now be requiring the installation costs covered up front ………. Our current pricing for a new installation is $499 (what happened to that $99 installation cost?) which includes the set-up of service, installation and wiring to your first PC or router. …………..We will require a payment for the testing (to see if it is even feasible at my location) by credit card for $49.99……..”
Then the monthly cost look like this:-
The basic connection “suitable for infrequent use, ie, email and web research medium file download/uploads, photos, etc very limited video and music sharing” is $49.99 a month ($600 a year plus tax) for a max speed of 1.5Mb/s.
The mid range connection “perfect for medium use large file downloads/uploads video and music sharing permitted excellent reliability” (so what does that make the basic connection, unreliable?) is $59.99 a month ($720 a year plus tax) for a max speed of 3.0Mb/s .
The “optimal service for heavy use supports the most demanding file download/upload requirements best video and music sharing” is $84.99 per month (over $1000 per year plus tax!) for max speed of 5.0 Mb/s
When you add the cost of a 40’ to 60’ tower that most rural users would have to install at their own cost in order to get “direct line of sight” to the nearest transmitter location then I for one do not call this affordable!
To then have to shell out $50 to get told whether or not a reliable connection can even be established from your location was, for me, the final insult. Seems I will be plodding along at my usual speed…… slowly!
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Mailbox Police (Take II)
I had hoped to leave this one lay despite the rather over the top reply to my previous post on this by one purporting to be a NL mail carrier, but given what I am seeing on neighborhood roads I just have to have a second crack at it. Firstly I understand that there have been two (possiby three) deaths of mail carriers in recent years and even one avoidable death is one too many, that said I was unable to find details of the deaths mentioned in the reply to my previous post. I cannot therefore decide for myself if this “accident” was due to the positioning of a rural mail box or indeed if the mail delivery persons (gota be politically correct here eh) was even in the process of their duties when “rear-ended”. (perhaps our respondent can provide details and links). Irregardless, given the miles driven by our rural mail carriers I would think this is in fact a stellar record and reflect positively upon the care most of these folk take when delivering the mail.
I have a great deal more problem with both the criteria in deciding that a mail box location is “unacceptable” and with the criteria for deciding where it will be “acceptable” to the unidentified individuals who are making these decisions. A little digging turns up remarkable little information on this, it seems they do receive “special training” and the decision is made using a “mathematical formula”. Apparently common sense has no part of this union led initiative nor are we allowed to know exactly what the criteria is so that we may judge for ourselves.
Haven now driven around our rural neighborhood and observed the little flags indicating where the mail boxes HAVE to be moved to within 15 DAYS I can only say that many, if not most of the changes demanded deify any kind of logic. The preferred location seems to be at or slightly beyond the crest of a hill where such a situation exists. I must PRESUME that the location is selected to enable the mail driver to be able to see traffic coming in BOTH directions during delivery and when leaving the location, sound logical right. WRONG. The fact that the MAIL driver can see oncoming traffic is all but immaterial, it is NOT on their side of the road (unless they are illegally crossing the road and delivering from the drivers side window a practice which Canada Post has declared not acceptable) the important thing is whether the traffic on their side of the road can see them AND SAFELY PASS. Since the locations I have seen marked are NOT such that the postal vehicle is completely off the road when the location is on or over the top of a hill, a driver attempting to pass will be in the middle of the road at exactly the point where it is blind FOR said motorist. The fact that the mail driver will be able to see it about to happen will not help them one little bit when these motorists swerve at the last minute to avoid a head on collision.
“In the summer of 2004, Canada Post announced a new policy that, to the average person, sure seems reasonable: no driving on the wrong side of the road. Until then, mail carriers who worked the rural routes routinely violated the law and veered down the left side of the street, giving them easy access to those rustic roadside mailboxes.”
A couple more points must be made with regard to the “safety” of our Rural Mail Delivery Persons. If as the Mailbox Police maintain the locations of these mailboxes is so dangerous why is it that I have observed several of these folks delivering mail WITHOUT the flashing safety beacon with which they have been provided turned on? Secondly if it is illegal, dangerous and contrary to Canada Posts directive to cross the road and face oncoming traffic to deliver from the drivers side window why have I observed rural mail carriers still doing just that? Thirdly, if such a practice is indeed as described above why is it that the Mailbox Police have NOT demanded that all mailboxes be located on the same side of the road so that the delivery can take place consistently from the passenger side window without dodging back and forth across the road? One wonder how much the actual mail delivery person who travels the route is consulted and involved in the process, I am sure that if they felt a particular location was dangerous if they approached the homeowner with a politely worded REQUEST explaining the problem very few of us would decline their request to make it safer for them.
That some of the “suggested” positions are indicated as being just 10” or 12” back from the existing spot or simply the other side of a driveway for no visible reason is just simply bizarre, but then that sums up this whole issue quite nicely. No consultation, no logic, no common sense, no appeal process, no one to contact and location choices that leave us wondering if the Mailbox Police were simply out on a “make work” project. It seem that many folk have contacted their local MP to complain about this, if you are one of those affected may I suggest you do the same.
I have a great deal more problem with both the criteria in deciding that a mail box location is “unacceptable” and with the criteria for deciding where it will be “acceptable” to the unidentified individuals who are making these decisions. A little digging turns up remarkable little information on this, it seems they do receive “special training” and the decision is made using a “mathematical formula”. Apparently common sense has no part of this union led initiative nor are we allowed to know exactly what the criteria is so that we may judge for ourselves.
Haven now driven around our rural neighborhood and observed the little flags indicating where the mail boxes HAVE to be moved to within 15 DAYS I can only say that many, if not most of the changes demanded deify any kind of logic. The preferred location seems to be at or slightly beyond the crest of a hill where such a situation exists. I must PRESUME that the location is selected to enable the mail driver to be able to see traffic coming in BOTH directions during delivery and when leaving the location, sound logical right. WRONG. The fact that the MAIL driver can see oncoming traffic is all but immaterial, it is NOT on their side of the road (unless they are illegally crossing the road and delivering from the drivers side window a practice which Canada Post has declared not acceptable) the important thing is whether the traffic on their side of the road can see them AND SAFELY PASS. Since the locations I have seen marked are NOT such that the postal vehicle is completely off the road when the location is on or over the top of a hill, a driver attempting to pass will be in the middle of the road at exactly the point where it is blind FOR said motorist. The fact that the mail driver will be able to see it about to happen will not help them one little bit when these motorists swerve at the last minute to avoid a head on collision.
“In the summer of 2004, Canada Post announced a new policy that, to the average person, sure seems reasonable: no driving on the wrong side of the road. Until then, mail carriers who worked the rural routes routinely violated the law and veered down the left side of the street, giving them easy access to those rustic roadside mailboxes.”
A couple more points must be made with regard to the “safety” of our Rural Mail Delivery Persons. If as the Mailbox Police maintain the locations of these mailboxes is so dangerous why is it that I have observed several of these folks delivering mail WITHOUT the flashing safety beacon with which they have been provided turned on? Secondly if it is illegal, dangerous and contrary to Canada Posts directive to cross the road and face oncoming traffic to deliver from the drivers side window why have I observed rural mail carriers still doing just that? Thirdly, if such a practice is indeed as described above why is it that the Mailbox Police have NOT demanded that all mailboxes be located on the same side of the road so that the delivery can take place consistently from the passenger side window without dodging back and forth across the road? One wonder how much the actual mail delivery person who travels the route is consulted and involved in the process, I am sure that if they felt a particular location was dangerous if they approached the homeowner with a politely worded REQUEST explaining the problem very few of us would decline their request to make it safer for them.
That some of the “suggested” positions are indicated as being just 10” or 12” back from the existing spot or simply the other side of a driveway for no visible reason is just simply bizarre, but then that sums up this whole issue quite nicely. No consultation, no logic, no common sense, no appeal process, no one to contact and location choices that leave us wondering if the Mailbox Police were simply out on a “make work” project. It seem that many folk have contacted their local MP to complain about this, if you are one of those affected may I suggest you do the same.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Broadcast TV in GBOS
A few weeks ago I wrote about the possible demise of all our broadcast TV reception in this area. The Broadcasters are crying that the cost to go digital as required by the CRTC by 2011 is too expensive and around 10% of their market will not be covered. It seems we here in Grey Bruce are part of that 10% because at this point they are still, so far as I know, talking about shutting down the existing analog transmitters in the area shortly leaving us with no choice (at least where I live) but satellite TV. Nothing wrong with that option except that compared with the cost of broadcast ($0) it is expensive, used to be that the lack of local stations was a bit of a problem but it seems that any local coverage has gone by the wayside anyway, so it just cost. I find it hard to justify an ongoing cost of $500 or more each year for the little we watch, but still like to see the news and some of the other programming sometimes.
So anyway I went looking to see what broadcast TV was currently licensed and what had been PROPOSED for digital, mostly to see if it was even going to be worth while to get a digital converter come next fall. Who know what will be still “on the books” by then but if you want to see what the current and future broadcast spectrum in this area looks like as it stand right now go to TV Fool and enter your coordinates to see all the stations within range and where they are in relation to your residence. You can get either a map or a detailed list. Could be that with a good uhf antenna we could bring in one of those new digital stations from Barrie or Kitchener if no local transmitters survive?
To find your coordinates either use google maps or go to the Grey or Bruce county GIS mapping site, locate your place and click on details to see the coordinates. Note that the coordinates expressed in degrees, minutes and seconds is not the same as when it is expressed in decimal which is what the TV site requires.
I considered the other alternative which was getting high speed internet with sufficient bandwith to watch programming and movies from on line but given that once again we out here are limited to wireless for high speed the cost is WAY to rich for me, even given how much I would like high speed for greater ease in research and downloads from the internet. At in excess of $500 up front for a tower to get above the tree line and equipment plus around a $1000 a year on an ongoing basis for any kind of package that does not have “limitations” on the volume of traffic its WAY out of my price range!
So its dial up internet and an ever reducing availability of TV news, thank goodness we have local radio to keep us up to date with a little of our local goings on, but their snippets are hardly in depth news. Seem the communications age is passing us rural folks by …… unless you can toss $$$ at it, not probable given the “job market” locally and province wide!
So anyway I went looking to see what broadcast TV was currently licensed and what had been PROPOSED for digital, mostly to see if it was even going to be worth while to get a digital converter come next fall. Who know what will be still “on the books” by then but if you want to see what the current and future broadcast spectrum in this area looks like as it stand right now go to TV Fool and enter your coordinates to see all the stations within range and where they are in relation to your residence. You can get either a map or a detailed list. Could be that with a good uhf antenna we could bring in one of those new digital stations from Barrie or Kitchener if no local transmitters survive?
To find your coordinates either use google maps or go to the Grey or Bruce county GIS mapping site, locate your place and click on details to see the coordinates. Note that the coordinates expressed in degrees, minutes and seconds is not the same as when it is expressed in decimal which is what the TV site requires.
I considered the other alternative which was getting high speed internet with sufficient bandwith to watch programming and movies from on line but given that once again we out here are limited to wireless for high speed the cost is WAY to rich for me, even given how much I would like high speed for greater ease in research and downloads from the internet. At in excess of $500 up front for a tower to get above the tree line and equipment plus around a $1000 a year on an ongoing basis for any kind of package that does not have “limitations” on the volume of traffic its WAY out of my price range!
So its dial up internet and an ever reducing availability of TV news, thank goodness we have local radio to keep us up to date with a little of our local goings on, but their snippets are hardly in depth news. Seem the communications age is passing us rural folks by …… unless you can toss $$$ at it, not probable given the “job market” locally and province wide!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
