Anonymous

My feedback

  1. 19 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Other topics  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 8 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  4. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  5. 19 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Data  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Anonymous commented  · 

    So that's how the cable industry got the set top box requirement pushed through. The idea that less service calls [also a job killer] by cable techs will save energy loses all credibility when you take into account the millions of extra set top boxes [most not energy star rated] that will be plugged in and running permanently. Yes, it will allow the cable company to save money, make a lot more money and cost the consumer, especially those with multiple tv's a small fortune. Great job FCC. We know who's bed you're in.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base