Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4 of 10 Households and the DTV Transition

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:44:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

<http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/t...;

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:15:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
news:2ls9c15pu1gqvkl4djnlom1gmqamurc8ah@4ax.com...
>
<http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/t...
900ADDB0B78286257030000AB467?OpenDocument>
>
> Kirk Bayne
> alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
> <http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;

Ah, subsidized equipment purchases for home entertainment equipment.
How sweet ... NOT!

Of course, this program will have an income test, so once again the
country's high earners
will be buying nice things for people who (a) aren't very smart (b) screwed
off in school or
(c) don't work very hard or very often. And, of course, being on welfare,
AFDC, WIC, SSI
(and any other alphabet giveaway program you care to name) will be an
automatic qualifier.

Socialism is getting to be more than just somewhat tiring.
July 3, 2005 9:19:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <PvKxe.6647$Eo.936@fed1read04>, "Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:
>
>"K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
>news:2ls9c15pu1gqvkl4djnlom1gmqamurc8ah@4ax.com...
>>
><http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/t...
>900ADDB0B78286257030000AB467?OpenDocument>
>>
>> Kirk Bayne
>> alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
>> <http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
>
> Ah, subsidized equipment purchases for home entertainment equipment.
>How sweet ... NOT!
>
> Of course, this program will have an income test, so once again the
>country's high earners
>will be buying nice things for people who (a) aren't very smart (b) screwed
>off in school or
>(c) don't work very hard or very often. And, of course, being on welfare,
>AFDC, WIC, SSI
>(and any other alphabet giveaway program you care to name) will be an
>automatic qualifier.
>
> Socialism is getting to be more than just somewhat tiring.
>
>
Damn right!
Related resources
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 9:17:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sal M. Onella wrote:

> Ah, subsidized equipment purchases for home entertainment equipment.
> How sweet ... NOT!
>
> Of course, this program will have an income test, so once again the
> country's high earners
> will be buying nice things for people who (a) aren't very smart (b) screwed
> off in school or
> (c) don't work very hard or very often. And, of course, being on welfare,
> AFDC, WIC, SSI
> (and any other alphabet giveaway program you care to name) will be an
> automatic qualifier.
>
> Socialism is getting to be more than just somewhat tiring.
>
>

If really Socialism I would agree; but remember, the property that is
being auctioned belongs to the citizens, not the broadcaster's and
certainly not the government's. What will the citizens get in return for
loosing access to their auctioned channels? We used to have UHF
channels 14 to 83. I suspect that when the rush to auction is over,
there may not be any new broadcasters; just the existing handful. A new
broadcaster may have to get access by the auction process, forcing the
viewer into a subscription service. Not much different then having to
pay a toll to drive on your own driveway. The "new use" will do me no
good and I suspect many others. I have no use for WiFi, WiMax, Verizons
Vcast, or whatever dumb ass thing that comes along.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 12:29:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 22:15:28 -0700 Sal M. Onella <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:
|
| "K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
| news:2ls9c15pu1gqvkl4djnlom1gmqamurc8ah@4ax.com...
|>
| <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/t...
| 900ADDB0B78286257030000AB467?OpenDocument>
|>
|> Kirk Bayne
|> alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
|> <http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
|
| Ah, subsidized equipment purchases for home entertainment equipment.
| How sweet ... NOT!
|
| Of course, this program will have an income test, so once again the
| country's high earners
| will be buying nice things for people who (a) aren't very smart (b) screwed
| off in school or
| (c) don't work very hard or very often. And, of course, being on welfare,
| AFDC, WIC, SSI
| (and any other alphabet giveaway program you care to name) will be an
| automatic qualifier.

That is not a valid description for all people who are lower in income
level. Many are because of the fields of work they choose, such as
school teacher.

Much of the issue is not about whether people can pay for new equipment,
but whether they should be forced to against their will (e.g. if both
analog and digital remain available, would they voluntarily switch to
digital on their own, or spend that money on something else instead).

Of course having both perpetually is a waste of spectrum. But looking
at it as a financial recovery issue, the government and industry is
wanting to do something (go from dual standard to single standard) that
saves some resource (their benefit) with a burden on others (everyone
who would have opted to stay with analog, whether they can pay for digital
or not). IMHO, the test should be whether they really would have stayed
with analog. OTOH, that's also too easy to fake.

As I understand it, subsidized equipment would principly be a tuner with
digital to analog converter. That seems reasonable enough (if it actually
gets all the stations one already gets). Let those who want hi-def pay
for it themselves. How much would it cost to make those in quantities of
millions (assume bulk purchase by government)? Could they get it under
$25 each?

Back when UHF was required in all new TVs, the incremental difference in
cost was about $25 based on old model vs. new model of a Heathkit color TV.
Separate converters were $40 and eventually dropped to $20. Of course,
those who didn't care for new channels or lived in VHF-only land (there
were a lot of those places back then) would not have to upgrade old stuff.
Digital TV doesn't offer the same idea.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:32:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

numeric wrote:
>
>
> Sal M. Onella wrote:
>
>> Ah, subsidized equipment purchases for home entertainment equipment.
>> How sweet ... NOT!
>>
>> Of course, this program will have an income test, so once again the
>> country's high earners
>> will be buying nice things for people who (a) aren't very smart (b)
>> screwed
>> off in school or
>> (c) don't work very hard or very often. And, of course, being on
>> welfare,
>> AFDC, WIC, SSI
>> (and any other alphabet giveaway program you care to name) will be an
>> automatic qualifier.
>>
>> Socialism is getting to be more than just somewhat tiring.
>>
>>
>
> If really Socialism I would agree; but remember, the property that is
> being auctioned belongs to the citizens, not the broadcaster's and
> certainly not the government's. What will the citizens get in return for
> loosing access to their auctioned channels? We used to have UHF
> channels 14 to 83. I suspect that when the rush to auction is over,
> there may not be any new broadcasters; just the existing handful. A new
> broadcaster may have to get access by the auction process, forcing the
> viewer into a subscription service. Not much different then having to
> pay a toll to drive on your own driveway. The "new use" will do me no
> good and I suspect many others. I have no use for WiFi, WiMax, Verizons
> Vcast, or whatever dumb ass thing that comes along.
>
I agree. But for all the talk of other services like you mention there
has been little action and I have and will predict little action in the
future. Trying to use purchased spectrum to compete with free spectrum
that the FCC is allocating more of (it is a politically correct thing to
do) and will allocate more of in the future is a fools game..

Those that try it will fail. The one thing that this spectrum is great
for is broadcasting and the only venture to publically state what they
plan on doing with theirs, Qualcomm on their auctioned purchased channel
55, is BROADCASTING. As I have predicted all this spectrum or at least
channels 52 thru 59 will be used for broadcasting and possibly in the
intermediate term for various failing wireless Internet mobile access
ventures.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:52:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 22:15:28 -0700 Sal M. Onella <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:
> |
> | "K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
> | news:2ls9c15pu1gqvkl4djnlom1gmqamurc8ah@4ax.com...
> |>
> | <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/t...
> | 900ADDB0B78286257030000AB467?OpenDocument>
> |>
> |> Kirk Bayne
> |> alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
> |> <http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
> |
> | Ah, subsidized equipment purchases for home entertainment equipment.
> | How sweet ... NOT!
> |
> | Of course, this program will have an income test, so once again the
> | country's high earners
> | will be buying nice things for people who (a) aren't very smart (b) screwed
> | off in school or
> | (c) don't work very hard or very often. And, of course, being on welfare,
> | AFDC, WIC, SSI
> | (and any other alphabet giveaway program you care to name) will be an
> | automatic qualifier.
>
> That is not a valid description for all people who are lower in income
> level. Many are because of the fields of work they choose, such as
> school teacher.
>
> Much of the issue is not about whether people can pay for new equipment,
> but whether they should be forced to against their will (e.g. if both
> analog and digital remain available, would they voluntarily switch to
> digital on their own, or spend that money on something else instead).
>
> Of course having both perpetually is a waste of spectrum. But looking
> at it as a financial recovery issue, the government and industry is
> wanting to do something (go from dual standard to single standard) that
> saves some resource (their benefit) with a burden on others (everyone
> who would have opted to stay with analog, whether they can pay for digital
> or not). IMHO, the test should be whether they really would have stayed
> with analog. OTOH, that's also too easy to fake.
>
> As I understand it, subsidized equipment would principly be a tuner with
> digital to analog converter. That seems reasonable enough (if it actually
> gets all the stations one already gets). Let those who want hi-def pay
> for it themselves. How much would it cost to make those in quantities of
> millions (assume bulk purchase by government)? Could they get it under
> $25 each?
>
> Back when UHF was required in all new TVs, the incremental difference in
> cost was about $25 based on old model vs. new model of a Heathkit color TV.
> Separate converters were $40 and eventually dropped to $20. Of course,
> those who didn't care for new channels or lived in VHF-only land (there
> were a lot of those places back then) would not have to upgrade old stuff.
> Digital TV doesn't offer the same idea.
>
Can they make them for $25? There is $16 just in IP royalties alone for
an 8-VSB converter. I watched a demonstration of a proposed digital to
analog converter in DC a few weeks ago. It was being demonstrated as a
device that could be bought in the millions and the price they gave was
$40 for a board at those quantities and before IP royalties.

They told Congressional staffers at this demo that their OEM's would
take this $40 board and pay the royalties and add a box with a power
supply, remote control, blinking lights and other things this box would
need and then market it, package it, distribute it and mark it up for
the retailer all for an extra $20. For a grand total of $60.

OEM's tell me that it would go more like this, even in quantities of a
million. $40 board, $16 IP royalties, $10 for box etc., $10 for
marketing, sales and distribution cost and at least a 60% mark-up on all
that for a sale price of $120 and more likely $150. I can only imagine
the mess if the Government actually tries to get involved in the process
bypassing the retail distribution model with some other process. Then
the cost is anybodies guess. Like the Iraq war. First estimates were
under $50 billion. One General got fired because he suggested it might
be more than $50 billion. Now we are looking at a TRILLION $$$.

Of course this was all predicated on this all happening by the end of
2006 and that has now morphed to 2009 and even that seems on hold. So
this $60 may be possible with 8-VSB converter boxes by then.

In the meantime if we switched to COFDM, converter boxes in the millions
could be had immediately at prices like $45. COFDM receivers were being
sold in the UK on sale for $35 before last Christmas. After all the IP
royalty cost for COFDM is $.60.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 10:00:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 02:52:14 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

| Can they make them for $25? There is $16 just in IP royalties alone for
| an 8-VSB converter. I watched a demonstration of a proposed digital to
| analog converter in DC a few weeks ago. It was being demonstrated as a
| device that could be bought in the millions and the price they gave was
| $40 for a board at those quantities and before IP royalties.

Stupid politicians that let the FCC standardize on 8-VSB should pay
the IP cost out of their own pay checks.

What the government might also do is negotiate the IP directly, saying
"let us have it for $0.60 per unit just for the subsidized units, or
else we'll make subsidized units with COFDM." :-)


| They told Congressional staffers at this demo that their OEM's would
| take this $40 board and pay the royalties and add a box with a power
| supply, remote control, blinking lights and other things this box would
| need and then market it, package it, distribute it and mark it up for
| the retailer all for an extra $20. For a grand total of $60.

Why would the government be buying marketing? For subsidized units,
it should be direct to one manufacturer.


| OEM's tell me that it would go more like this, even in quantities of a
| million. $40 board, $16 IP royalties, $10 for box etc., $10 for
| marketing, sales and distribution cost and at least a 60% mark-up on all
| that for a sale price of $120 and more likely $150. I can only imagine
| the mess if the Government actually tries to get involved in the process
| bypassing the retail distribution model with some other process. Then
| the cost is anybodies guess. Like the Iraq war. First estimates were
| under $50 billion. One General got fired because he suggested it might
| be more than $50 billion. Now we are looking at a TRILLION $$$.

I'm sure the government can get this as a direct contract. Then they
can specify to leave out every IP that isn't really needed (having
standardized on fixed cost (as opposed to proportional cost) IP in
the choice of DTV standard is their own stupidity). They can simply
bid the whole contract out with a ceiling price. Someone will eventually
go for it.


| Of course this was all predicated on this all happening by the end of
| 2006 and that has now morphed to 2009 and even that seems on hold. So
| this $60 may be possible with 8-VSB converter boxes by then.
|
| In the meantime if we switched to COFDM, converter boxes in the millions
| could be had immediately at prices like $45. COFDM receivers were being
| sold in the UK on sale for $35 before last Christmas. After all the IP
| royalty cost for COFDM is $.60.

Sounds like a fine switch to me.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 02:52:14 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | Can they make them for $25? There is $16 just in IP royalties alone for an 8-VSB converter. I watched a demonstration of a proposed digital to
> | analog converter in DC a few weeks ago. It was being demonstrated as a device that could be bought in the millions and the price they gave was
> | $40 for a board at those quantities and before IP royalties.
>
> Stupid politicians that let the FCC standardize on 8-VSB should pay the IP cost out of their own pay checks.
>
> What the government might also do is negotiate the IP directly, saying "let us have it for $0.60 per unit just for the subsidized units, or
> else we'll make subsidized units with COFDM." :-)
>
A switch to COFDM would still be the fastest, least expensive and best
option. The OTA transition in the US will wallow along for many more
years as things are going. If COFDM were adopted or allowed all kind of
energies would be released to get it done now. Business plans like those
that are so successful in the UK would blossom overnight. Wouldn't need
mandates and the cost of helping those who could not afford a digital
converter would be lower and it could be done immediately since the
COFDM technology exist at very low prices. The economies of scale of
COFDM are years ahead of 8-VSB and are intrinsically lower than 8-VSB to
begin with.

Many countries are already using COFDM and selling receivers at
incredible rates. The UK at around 8 million over the last 2.5 years.
France at 400,000 in just the first three months of broadcasting with
similar stories coming from Italy, Finland and Germany.
>
> | They told Congressional staffers at this demo that their OEM's would
> | take this $40 board and pay the royalties and add a box with a power
> | supply, remote control, blinking lights and other things this box would
> | need and then market it, package it, distribute it and mark it up for
> | the retailer all for an extra $20. For a grand total of $60.
>
> Why would the government be buying marketing? For subsidized units,
> it should be direct to one manufacturer.
>
How would the Government distribute it? Someone has to. Stack them up at
your local Post Office? They will probablay subsidize the units with
Income Tax deductions or some kind of chit that you redeem at Radio
Schack. They will use the retail sales and distribution system we have.
They would put out bids for some entity to build these units, somekind
of a guarantee of minimum quantity.

Say make a couple of million, we the government will be the buyer of
last resort. Put them out there in the market and we will deliver
customers via subsidy and or tax abatement. I don't think the Government
will get involved with the sale or distribution of these. If they did
that would be by far the most costly route. So all the normal cost of
manufacturing these apply. The manufacturers and retailers will be
looking to sell more than those the Government subsidizes.

Bob Miller

>
> | OEM's tell me that it would go more like this, even in quantities of a million. $40 board, $16 IP royalties, $10 for box etc., $10 for
> | marketing, sales and distribution cost and at least a 60% mark-up on all that for a sale price of $120 and more likely $150. I can only imagine
> | the mess if the Government actually tries to get involved in the process bypassing the retail distribution model with some other process. Then
> | the cost is anybodies guess. Like the Iraq war. First estimates were under $50 billion. One General got fired because he suggested it might
> | be more than $50 billion. Now we are looking at a TRILLION $$$.
>
> I'm sure the government can get this as a direct contract. Then they can specify to leave out every IP that isn't really needed (having
> standardized on fixed cost (as opposed to proportional cost) IP in the choice of DTV standard is their own stupidity). They can simply
> bid the whole contract out with a ceiling price. Someone will eventually go for it.
>
>
> | Of course this was all predicated on this all happening by the end of | 2006 and that has now morphed to 2009 and even that seems on hold. So
> | this $60 may be possible with 8-VSB converter boxes by then. In the meantime if we switched to COFDM, converter boxes in the millions
> | could be had immediately at prices like $45. COFDM receivers were being sold in the UK on sale for $35 before last Christmas. After all the IP
> | royalty cost for COFDM is $.60.
>
> Sounds like a fine switch to me.
>
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:01:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D a9hro0rt8@news3.newsguy.com...


< snip >
> ... people who (a) aren't very smart (b) screwed
> off in school or (c) don't work very hard or very often.

< snip >

> That is not a valid description for all people who are lower in income
> level. Many are because of the fields of work they choose, such as
> school teacher.

I understand but I was generalizing. Put it this way: People who are
smart,
studied in school and work hard are successful by the hundreds of millions.
Their
numbers dwarf the count of smart, well-educated, hardworking poor people.

I know some decent people are poor because they made personal choices
of one kind or another. I can relate. Twenty-five years ago, I was
finishing a 20-year
stint in the US military and I had a negative net worth. I knew it wouldn't
be that way
forever -- I was setting myself up and things have worked out well.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:37:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 22:01:00 -0700 Sal M. Onella <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:

| I know some decent people are poor because they made personal choices
| of one kind or another. I can relate. Twenty-five years ago, I was
| finishing a 20-year
| stint in the US military and I had a negative net worth. I knew it wouldn't
| be that way
| forever -- I was setting myself up and things have worked out well.

So what if you were told, during that phase of your life when you had a
negative net worth, and almost no cash, that your TV would no longer work
because some government bureacrats thought it would be better to require
every broadcaster to switch to digital rather than let the free market
make the decision?

There are, of course, lots of people who have gone through times of
financial struggling that are doing well today. But equally there are
lots of people for whom today is that day of financial struggling.

So let's just make the conversion to digital entirely voluntary and let
the market decide who goes which way.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:37:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

(phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> So what if you were told, during that phase of your life when you had a
> negative net worth, and almost no cash, that your TV would no longer work
> because some government bureacrats thought it would be better to require
> every broadcaster to switch to digital rather than let the free market
> make the decision?
>
> There are, of course, lots of people who have gone through times of
> financial struggling that are doing well today. But equally there are
> lots of people for whom today is that day of financial struggling.

Even when I was at the point that moving up to $295/month rent was a big
decision over $275/month, a $50 item that lasts for 5-10 years wouldn't
have caused me any financial hardship. I can find a lot of ways to save
$1/month.

Heck, even though $50 is now less than an hour's wage, I still do the same
things I did when I was much less well off: always buy the "on sale" stuff
at the grocery store, take at least *some* food to work as lunch so I don't
have to buy as much, comparison shop and haggle for every purchase, etc.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TreeChainsaw....
July 7, 2005 9:11:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d35d1704da44b2d989e41@news.nabs.net>, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> (phil-news-nospam@ipal.net) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>> So what if you were told, during that phase of your life when you had a
>> negative net worth, and almost no cash, that your TV would no longer work
>> because some government bureacrats thought it would be better to require
>> every broadcaster to switch to digital rather than let the free market
>> make the decision?
>>
>> There are, of course, lots of people who have gone through times of
>> financial struggling that are doing well today. But equally there are
>> lots of people for whom today is that day of financial struggling.
>
>Even when I was at the point that moving up to $295/month rent was a big
>decision over $275/month, a $50 item that lasts for 5-10 years wouldn't
>have caused me any financial hardship. I can find a lot of ways to save
>$1/month.
>
>Heck, even though $50 is now less than an hour's wage, I still do the same
>things I did when I was much less well off: always buy the "on sale" stuff
>at the grocery store, take at least *some* food to work as lunch so I don't
>have to buy as much, comparison shop and haggle for every purchase, etc.
>
WTF job do you have????
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:06:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

GMAN (glenzabr@xmission.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> >Heck, even though $50 is now less than an hour's wage, I still do the same
> >things I did when I was much less well off: always buy the "on sale" stuff
> >at the grocery store, take at least *some* food to work as lunch so I don't
> >have to buy as much, comparison shop and haggle for every purchase, etc.
> >
> WTF job do you have????

I do computer networking design, administration, etc., as well as some
programming. $100K/year isn't all that unusual in the field when you have
15-20 years of experience and keep up with the latest technology. If I
wanted more money but a less relaxed work environment, I could find it
without much trouble.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel the need...the need for
| expeditious velocity"
|
| -- Brain
July 8, 2005 11:19:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d3700f02fe769f7989e46@news.nabs.net>, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>GMAN (glenzabr@xmission.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
>> >Heck, even though $50 is now less than an hour's wage, I still do the same
>> >things I did when I was much less well off: always buy the "on sale" stuff
>> >at the grocery store, take at least *some* food to work as lunch so I don't
>> >have to buy as much, comparison shop and haggle for every purchase, etc.
>> >
>> WTF job do you have????
>
>I do computer networking design, administration, etc., as well as some
>programming. $100K/year isn't all that unusual in the field when you have
>15-20 years of experience and keep up with the latest technology. If I
>wanted more money but a less relaxed work environment, I could find it
>without much trouble.
>
Thats cool, and thanks for replying...
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 6:10:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

GMAN (glenzabr@xmission.com) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> >I do computer networking design, administration, etc., as well as some
> >programming. $100K/year isn't all that unusual in the field when you have
> >15-20 years of experience and keep up with the latest technology. If I
> >wanted more money but a less relaxed work environment, I could find it
> >without much trouble.
> >
> Thats cool, and thanks for replying...

I was hesitant, because now people really think I'm loony because I only
buy peanut butter when it is on sale (and stock up when that happens). :) 

--
Jeff Rife | "I'll be back in five or six days."
|
| "No, you'll be back in five or six pieces."
| -- "The Lost World"
!