Comments by Ken Johnson

Video: Measure S debate at MCC

Brian Ginna,

“Hostage” –an interesting word choice. Aren’t people free to choose to send a check of any amount to CUSD right at this moment or at any time?

My post offered an ‘Alternative Parcel Tax Measure’. The voter is free to ‘Vote No On Measure S” and mail a check to CUSD on the way back from the polling location, if they feel the 5 month delay is critical.

The question: is Measure S worthy of compelling your neighbour to send a check? That is what a parcel tax does!

We apparently agree that accountability is important. CUSD’s Measure S doesn’t express that same commitment to accountability. To CUSD, accountability is complying with State Law by send the State the required minimal report: “amount of funds collected and expended”– not even to the people who will be writing checks! I wonder if people might like something more informative than: ‘received $2,000,000 spent $2,000,000’ and to find out that much, the public will have to dig for it.

We apparently agree that CUSD is a “struggling school district”. But it is not money where they are struggling.

Billions have been added to funding by the State again this year!
Please see: “SCHOOLS CHIEF JACK O’CONNELL COMMENTS ON THE GOVERNOR’S MAY BUDGET REVISION”
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr06/yr06rel53.asp
Did you notice: “The May Revision to the budget delivers on Governor Schwarzenegger’s commitment to restore funding to schools.”

It is on academic performance effectiveness that CUSD is struggling. It is in the area of judgment that CUSD is struggling. It is in the area of accountability that CUSD is struggling. It is in the area of honesty regarding the academic status of the district that CUSD is struggling.

Mail that voluntary check for you AND your neighbour – you will have the same level of accountability as voting for Measure S from the School Board! You will have the same say where your money is spent as Measure S.

On 6-6-6 tell the School Board NO! That you really believe in accountability, by Voting No on Measure S – you want something better!

Ken Johnson

Video: Measure S debate at MCC

I apologize for taking so long to publish the ‘Alternative Parcel Tax Measure’. It is on CUSD.Info now.

You can vote for Measure S OR the Alternative Parcel Tax Measure in November. But we can’t have both! Please Vote NO on Measure S.

Restore School Bussing, Accountability and really improve our schools.

On 6-6-6 Just Say No! To the School Board! No on S!

http://cusd.info/

Ken Johnson

Senate and Supervisor candidates will appear at Wednesday’s MCC meeting

Sam,

Yes, you have to remember to send your Senior Citizen Exemption on time in each and every year! You also have to provide personal information that could facilitate identity theft—sort of dangerous in a school area with no guarantee of security of your personal provided information.

The CUSD school board was aware of the problem – just disinterested in doing anything to solve the problems!

Another anomaly, if your wife is under 65, and God forbid you die, your widow will loose your senior exemption due to the annual submission requirement! Sort of a cold, leave no widow untaxed!

I am glad to see people actually sitting down and thoroughly reading Measure S – it is not ready for prime time or support.

Ken Johnson

HMB Review waves its petard about, with predictable results

Linda,
Thank you. Sorry, no formal ‘No on S’ signs. Try:

On 6-6-6
Just Say No!
To Evil
School Board!
No on S!

Print it up on your printer in 72pt Arial. That might engender conversation, which they have ardently avoided. I found it interesting that at the last CUSD Bored [intentional spelling] meeting; they were pushing “Yes on S” signs on attendees. There were only three members of the public (me, the MCTV cameraman and Cindy Epps), the rest were CUSD employees.

Your problem with the Review not printing your letter is not unique. After four previous unsuccessful attempts of passing essentially the same Ballot Measure, their attempt is to suppress any intelligent discourse or anything factual. Even more serious is the Review’s assiduous avoidance of offering any correction of their disinformation campaign.

I judge a publication worthy of being called a newspaper on the following standard:
Are the Opinion offerings labeled and factually accurate?
Are the articles factually accurate, unbiased, balanced and sourced where appropriate?
Do they correct inaccuracies?

Mr. Barry Parr and Coastsider.com meet and exceed that standard!

On the other hand, there is the Review that fails miserably the entire test!

The Measure S endorsement by the Review’s Editor on 24May06:
“in a time of shrinking state funding”
compare to:
California Department of Education press release on 12May06:
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell issued the following statement regarding the release of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s May Budget Revision:

“The May Revision to the budget delivers on Governor Schwarzenegger’s commitment to restore funding to schools.”
That was another 2.8 Billion Dollars!
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr06/yr06rel53.asp

OH, what a quandary:
Trust the Review OR
California Department of Education,
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell!
OH, who to trust!
Yeah, right!

Ken Johnson

HMB Review waves its petard about, with predictable results

’Environmentalist—not the blameless sainted school board—responsible for 10 year delay of new school.’ Or so half of the Review’s endorsement of Measure S would have us believe. I sent Clay Lambert, Review Editor, a thank you note for picking at that old scab – it might just be the hitch that will make Measure S lose. The Review: “shrinking state funding” – if the reader has any other source of information, they know the opposite is true, with billions added earlier this year and another three billion added just two weeks ago to state school budgets!

Coastsider.Com: ‘hold your nose and vote for Measure S; it just might do some good’.

A contrast of arrogant blatant PR versus honest opinion. Come on Barry, give me a break and trip up some. According to the ‘Yes on S’ spokesperson, I am the only person on earth not supporting Measure S.

Ken Johnson

HMB Review waves its petard about, with predictable results

Barry,

Is the Review still being published? I looked for it printed on yellow paper, but I couldn’t find it!

Eric Rice is missed. He understood the difference between journalism and propaganda.

Ken Johnson

Maverick’s Surf Contest on TV Saturday

Leonard,
Thank you for the heads up. I am sorry you are Comcasted; I and many others will be enjoying it in HDTV 1080i OTA or on DirectTV. There is no technical reason you shouldn’t be able to do the same on <argh> cable. Go scream at them!
See: http://coastsider.com/comments/1389_0_1_0_C/
Ken

Coastsider endorses Measure S

It is Election Day:

A personal message to those voting No On Measure S:

Vote Early and Vote Often!
It IS for the children!

Ken Johnson - out

Coastsider endorses Measure S

Ray,
You partially answered one of your own questions for me: “the busing issue which has absolutely nothing to do with the objectives of measure S”. Or to re-phrase it: Measure S excludes bussing and children’s safety.

As to another of your questions: I am sorry, but I don’t have the time to teach or tutor math or statistics any longer, you will have to enroll in a few University courses.

“I really wonder what your underlying agenda might be.”
Mine is straightforward: see CUSD START teaching and caring for ALL of the wonderful children in their trust.

I do recognize that the California Department of Education documents I recommended requires a particular educational background:
It is definitely not everyone’s cup of tea.

But, you have problems with your own references:
in the ed.gov study you referenced:

“The findings of Project STAR [Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio] are limited to grades kindergarten through 3--no reasonable extrapolation beyond those grades can be made from these data.”

Maybe the word “extrapolation” is one of those “long words” you objected to in an earlier post!
I will simplify it:
Use a dictionary! Don’t reference documents that don’t support your personal opinions and myths – some one may actually have read them!

Ken Johnson

Coastsider endorses Measure S

“Abandon hope all ye who enter here” should appear above all main doors of CUSD and Rodin’s La Porte de l’Enfer (The Gates of Hell) for the entrance of a new intermediate school if it is ever built somewhere.

You can go to Stanford University to see it and if your child has taken an art class involving sculpture at CUSD and they did not drag you there; give CUSD an “F” in Art.

It has the best museum and examples of the casting process west of The Musée Rodin in Paris with the benefit of fewer French around. And does CUSD think important?

Why did I write, “if it is ever built somewhere”? It is the dirty little secret that the supporters of Measure S don’t want to discuss. I started at each School board meeting from the podium, starting back in December, to request the School Board include in their upcoming Parcel Tax a statement that they would not change the location of the new school from the Cunha Site’. They refused! I followed up in writing during the brief public hearing. They refused!

I also urged them at the same times to include another statement that they would not withdraw from Federal funding. There was a push expressed by a letter from the majority of staff at Cunha decrying their inability to comply with NCLB. They don’t think they should be held responsible for seeing that 1 in 4 students can pass the basic math and English test for the material that the State requires them to teach. The teachers seem to think it would be easier to use your Parcel Tax proceeds to replace Federal Funding rather than actually teaching kids.

The teachers’ letter: http://hmbreview.com/articles/2006/03/29/news/editorial/story3.txt
My Response: http://hmbreview.com/articles/2006/04/05/news/letter_to_the_editor/story6.txt

The only reason not to prohibit moving the new intermediate school location again or specifying that they wouldn’t withdraw from Federal Funding is that the School Board Majority wants to do both after you foolishly vote for Measure S! And use your money to again supplement their political agendas: remember Wavecrest?

And it is always embarrassing running for reelection for a School Board while CUSD is once again declared a Failed NCLB school district and probably AGAIN the only one in the County and of the few in the State!

O’CONNELL RELEASES LIST OF 2005-06 PI SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS;
CDE UPDATES 2005 ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRESS REPORTS
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr05/yr05rel112.asp
Go to the bottom of the State of California document – 1 of only 10 in the State!

The teachers at Cunha want the district to withdraw from Federal Funding because they know the Parcel Tax dollars can replace the Federal Funding AND they won’t be subject to a mandated PI “Corrective Action” and they, at least, can read the first suggested option: “Replaces school staff”!
NCLB Program Improvement School Requirements:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/nclbpireq.asp

A Parcel Tax without Accountability, clearly defined and restricted use of funds and school bussing is not just a waste of your and your neighbours’ funds – but is the precise opposite of No Child Left Behind.

I have offered an alternative. I invite your assistance in passing it in November; we can vote on a Measure that satisfies the needs of the children.

For me, intentionally leaving children behind in the dustbin of education IS evil.

On 6-6-6 please Vote No on Measure S! Say No to the School Board!

Ken Johnson

Coastsider endorses Measure S

Kenneth King,

I believe we agree on goals for CUSD. For the moment, I’ll just agree to disagree on the means. I know just how much commitment it takes to get out there and walk a precinct in support of a ballot measure.

I can appreciate a desire to “do something” to improve our schools – CUSD is in great need of academic improvement. Please read “An Alternative Parcel Tax Measure” on CUSD.Info. http://cusd.info/

It is not intended as a final version. And it will evolve. It is intended as a starting point if and when Measure S looses. I saw little in Measure S that reflected the public comment in the oh too brief public review. A review period for the public measured in minutes. I hope to avoid that criticism.

Please send your criticism and suggestions regarding “An Alternative Parcel Tax Measure” to the email account on the measure. Your assistance in making it win in November would be most welcomed.

Regards,
Ken Johnson

Coastsider endorses Measure S

“The May Revision to the budget delivers on Governor commitment to restore funding to schools.” State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell on 12 May 2006
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr06/yr06rel53.asp

Joel Farbstein,
You are arguing ancient history and the above points to today’s reality of school funding! The State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell is not exactly what you can call an opponent of school funding! He also is not a supporter of the Governor! Please read the short document.

“Bayless estimated that re-instating busing would likely cost between $200,000 to $300,000.” 8Mar2006 Review
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/03/08/news/local_news/story02.txt
When bussing stopped, it cost $300,000 a year.
Enrolment at Cunha has dropped by 30% from its high; so the number range seems reasonable.
That works out to a parcel tax of $20 to $30 a year!

NOW! CUSD 2004-05 real budget numbers:
Total, Governmental Funds:  Total Revenues: $29,143,833
General Fund:  Total Revenues: $24,092,004
Bussing = between $200,000 to $300,000
So say $250,000 divided by $24,092,004

That is roughly One Percent!

Joel Farbstein: How did you arrive with: “the cost of busing was 1/3 of the budget”???
I don’t particularly care if you want to call me among the “fear-mongers”; I am curious thou, what do you want to be called in light of the above?

The above is an oversimplified example. I just wanted to put it into perspective relative to Mr. Farbstein dubious comments.

CUSD 2004-05 real budget numbers:
Certificated Personnel Salaries [teachers] Total Expenditures excluding Employee Benefits = $12,790,602

Put another way, 2% of teacher pay would have covered school bussing.

CUSD teachers: average paid: 1999-00 $46,672; 2004-05 $58,208 for 187 days worked.
That is a 25% increase, or roughly a 5% per year pay increase.

So the choice was school bussing and a 3% annual increase in average teacher pay OR eliminate School Bussing and 5% annual average pay increases for teachers which is what the School Board chose.

I’ll let the reader look up just how much the teacher pay increases were above the average annual inflation rate for the same time period. Put another way, did your pay increase 25% over the last 5 years?

It is just the mental picture, of a child walking along the highway, in a driving rainstorm. Cars are rushing toward them, with drivers unable to see clearly through their windshield. And then the ultimate horror for any parent and any driver occurs. It is that image, among many others, that makes me seriously question the values of the School Board’s hardened determination not to offer School Bussing!

We Can; We Must do better than the School Board’s Measure S!

Please Vote No on Measure S.
In November then support the alternative!

Ken Johnson

Coastsider endorses Measure S

Don Pettengill,

Thanks, the EdSource document provides the general public a quick easy read on the topic. The public often hears the Teacher Union position without proper context.

In the EdSource document, hopefully people will note:

“National Education Association (NEA) wrote:  “The Association opposes providing additional compensation to attract and/or retain education employees in hard-to-recruit positions.”

“The single salary schedule, according to the AFT [American Federation of Teachers], has persisted in large part “because it is viewed by teachers as equitable and by management as easy to administer.”

Maybe someone might question whether an AP Physics instructor and a Home Ec teacher receiving the same pay might just be part of the problem!

Some might notice that the Teacher Union often refer to the State of Connecticut pay experiment but often fail to note: “Along with salary increases came a variety of policies and incentives aimed at raising teacher quality.”

I found of interest:
“New teachers who had scored in the top quartile on college Entrance exams were nearly twice as likely to leave the profession (26%) as those who scored lower (14%).”

Also of interest:
“More than 25% of teachers in the bottom achievement-quartile schools left each year, compared with less than 20% in schools in the top quartile.”

An ominous projection for CUSD!

In 2004-05, CUSD average actual salaries paid was $58,208 for 187 Work Days (180 Teaching Days) with a benefits package paid by the district (the public) that private sector employees would kill for.

CUSD School Superintendent John Bayless often likes to whine in public comparing CUSD to “over the hill school districts” (Hillsborough) finances. I know some of the private fundraisers for that district on a social level – we will NEVER compete successfully with them for fundraising!

He never compares CUSD with the only other Unified School District in the county!

2004-05, South San Francisco Unified average actual salaries paid was $53,523 for 186 Work Days (180 Teaching Days).

That works out to: $4,685 for that extra workday here – a non-teaching day!?
Can we cut that extra day out?

Take another look at: http://cusd.info/page6.html
They pay less and THEY CLEAN CUSD’S CLOCK!

I must compliment you on your patience in dealing with people who obviously don’t read and their ‘citations’ are dubious at best and ludicrous at the worse: i.e.
The guy looking for his new job on “careerbuilder.com that a shift manager at Burger King can make 50K” but “can’t seem to find it at the moment.”
Please, tell me that he isn’t a teacher!

For such people, just remind them that K-3 (the only area where class size has any real significance to student academic performance) will be slightly less than 20 – see state funding.  Both districts have similar class sizes with the slight ‘advantage’ to CUSD.
You will find that:
“Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Tables for California’s 2005 School Characteristics Index and Similar Schools Ranks”
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/tdgreport0506.pdf
is most useful in describing that class size, in the range being discussed, is insignificant to academic performance!
You will also find the work done by David Rogosa at Stanford University for the California Department of Education helpful.

What is significant is the positive relationship to parent education level (the reason why I publicized the trend line analysis for Cunha a couple of years ago- see graphs http://cusd.info/page8.html
) that the School Board’s behaviour and results has been driving them out of the CUSD schools!

As to explaining it to those other people who refuse to read and use mythology as a ‘citation’, I will leave them to you. I am not that patient! To lift a line from Woody Allen: ‘It is like explaining alternate side of the street parking to a turnip!’

Good luck.
Ken Johnson

Coastsider endorses Measure S

To Seniors and those who advise them, posts here may have mislead seniors and deny them the Senior Exemption if Measure S passes.

Measure S:
Section 3. Senior Exemption from Special Tax. An exemption from payment of the
special tax shall be granted on any parcel owned by one or more persons 65 years of age or over as of July 1 of any applicable tax year who occupies said parcel as a principal residence, upon annual application for exemption (“Senior Citizen Exemption”). The District shall annually provide to the San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector or other appropriate County tax official (“County Tax Collector”) a list of parcels that the District has approved for a Senior Citizen Exemption.

Please note above: “annual application for exemption” … “The District shall annually
provide to the San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector” … “District has approved for a Senior Citizen Exemption.”

It doesn’t tell you that the deadline this year is 15 June 2006 for submission. It doesn’t tell you that you must provide COPIES of a collection of personal documents and send them to the School District each and every year!

Please see the Measure S web site.
http://www.pro-school.org/senior%20exemption%20form.pdf

I cannot personally attest to the documents authenticity; but knowing Cindy Epps, I don’t think she would knowingly allow a misrepresentation of a CUSD document.

This will be a new process required of seniors for the tax bills to be received in the fall. It will be to late at that time to request an exemption for that bill.

Again, the deadline is 15 June 2006.

Barry, you may want to post this information on a main page – probably rewritten under your name. Seniors, or those who work with Seniors, need to act within the next two weeks from today to exercise their rights if Measure S passes.

At a personal level, I abhor those who act for short-term political gain, providing verifiably false information, that may disadvantage seniors who are living on limited fixed budgets. They are simply not worthy of a reply.

Ken Johnson

Coastsider endorses Measure S

Ray Olson,
The chart is evidence that neither money nor ‘demographics’ explains CUSD poor academic performance. The question of relevant class size and its funding was already normalized between the two districts. As to where the money WILL go – that is conjecture. There is no effective accountability in Measure S!

What “check box” are you referring to? Are you referring to Measure S? With all due respect, you appear to be confused concerning the issue. The “county assessor” has no relevance to the question!

If you are referring to an exemption for seniors; please read the relevant section of Measure S and you will find a convoluted process that requires seniors, each and every year, to send documents to the school superintendent’s office that could subject them to ‘identity theft’. A process that will leave many seniors and widows paying the tax without regard to their “senior exemption”! For the documents that are required by CUSD, the only place that I have found it is on the Measure S web site – strange – do you need a URL to locate it?

If you are referring to: “When I asked the school board to ‘turn on’ an option for the STAR testing (that occurred in May), they refused.” You apparently are not familiar with the topic. Please see the California Department of Education site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/

The referenced form, submitted by CUSD to the State, would result in reporting to the district the results by teacher, facilitating accountability of teacher performance – my goal was to identify those teachers that had exhibited exemplary teaching performance measured by the learning expressed on the tests by their students and to recognize them and provide financial recognition. We do have some excellent teachers and I wanted to let those teachers know that their performance and effort is appreciated!

I can appreciate a desire to “do something” to improve our schools – CUSD is in great need of academic improvement. Please read “An Alternative Parcel Tax Measure” on CUSD.Info. http://cusd.info/

Unfortunately, Measure S is not a solution! Please, after reading the above ‘Alternative Parcel Tax Measure’, let us work together on a real solution. Vote No on Measure S!

Ken Johnson

Coastsider endorses Measure S

Don,
This chart demonstrates that money nor ‘demographics’ explain CUSD poor performance: in San Mateo County, with less money, equal or greater student population challenge and they clean CUSD’s clock on performance – up to double!

http://cusd.info/page6.html

Many parents are not concerned, saying that ‘my kids don’t fit into these categories’ – what they don’t get is that these numbers represent the ‘canary in the cage’ analysis! CUSD under performs at the ‘low’ end; under performs at the top end for the gifted and on AP – then is it reasonable to conclude that the middle is OK?

When I asked the school board to ‘turn on’ an option for the STAR testing (that occurred in May), they refused. Parents would be able to track not just their children’s performance but it would be possible track performance for larger groups, without identifying students individually. I wanted to identify teachers who were doing a super job measured by improved student performance and to financially reward those teachers. The reaction by both CUSD School Board Member and past president Mr. Dwight Wilson and the Teacher Union Representative was fascinating. Blasphemy! Heresy! Sacrilege! ‘Measure teacher effective performance’?

Average CUSD teacher pay has increased by 25% between 2000 and 2005. Now they want more than the 5% per year increase for: “A highly qualified and well-trained teaching staff” in Measure S! They just won’t allow us to identify those teachers?

If the teacher claims they are teaching; and the child is not learning; then the teacher is not teaching!

Accountability! Accountability! We don’t need no stinking Accountability!

Ken Johnson

Letter: Comcast Cable TV quality problems?

Brian,

Glad to hear you shop on the coastside. May depend on who you spoke to at Strawflower Electronics. I stopped in there looking for a separate HDTV receiver for another monitor in another room that doesn’t have an internal HDTV receiver. There were two guys working there, which I didn’t know – I was the only one in the store that knew anything about HDTV. Radio Shack, at that time, offered a receiver with the specs that I wanted. I didn’t know at the time that they were no longer a Radio Shack dealer.  Anyway, the guys were nice enough to give me the number for Radio Shack over the hill. (Radio Shack, 870 Ralston Ave., Belmont –592-3318 Lewis (I don’t have his last name) seemed to know his stuff). The receiver was out of stock.

(I still have a JVC D-VHS to use till new (chip) HDTV separate receivers in volume production.)

But don’t give up on Strawflower Electronics. Out of the owners of Strawflower Electronics, the guy who was on the Fire Board, use to do installs. I don’t know if he wants to do the test that you want and / or the install, but it wouldn’t hurt to ask – except maybe the wallet. 

OH, I don’t get WB 20.1 (just WB 20) but they are merging with UPN and going to use UPN 44.1 transmitter and I do get UPN 44.1 .

Doesn’t much matter what specific components to use for a test as described in previous post. Radio Shack stuff is what I used for the testing from Strawflower Electronics just to make certain the data and my math was right. [I could have used a meter for a test but a real picture is still more assuring before installing antennas.] The other owner at Strawflower Electronics also told me it wouldn’t work, even back then!
I believe the small B&W;portable TV came from Fry’s – doesn’t much matter as long as it will produce a great picture when connected to a known good signal source. All that was more than a dozen years ago. OH, the cabling IS important! Use top quality RG/6 coax!

I did eventually use a Pre-amp, currently in use, for a test before final install. Just like you described, Strawflower Electronics guy kept telling me it wouldn’t work. It worked!

Here is what I am using now:

= Antenna; - describe as greater than 200 miles VHF [bigger the better] - more than a dozen years and still working!
Radio Shack as a minimum, hy-gain as a top end
[Strawflower Electronics would order from hy-gain]

=Rotator:
AVOID Radio Shack models
(from Fry’s) – Channel Master model 9521A (I probably will replace with hy-gain)
hy-gain as a top end

Pre-amp:
Radio Shack (ANTENNA Mounted!) more than a dozen years and still working

Radio Shack and hy-gain both have web sites. If Strawflower Electronics can’t do the test / install you want; the Belmont Radio Shack should be able to help you. Frys Sunnyvale is better informed than Fry’s Palo Alto.

Well Brian, you have ALL the info you need to follow through.

Ken Johnson

Letter: Comcast Cable TV quality problems?

Brian,

Glad to help. Casa del Mar / Imperial Bay has great signal strength. A great percentage of the coastal area should also be true. Don’t know who you have been talking to. Do they have any conflicting financial or political interests?

The last time I surveyed was before HDTV general broadcast availability; but the coastal plain to just the sharp general elevation rise should be good.  The area between in the south, HMB Magnolia, and the harbour north and east to past HMB downtown had general LOS capability. Also south of Ocean Colony. I can’t speak to Ocean Colony since the CC&Rs;preempted antennas at the time we looked at it. I would anticipate a significant part of El Granada should offer the same opportunity. Ideal is at the top of the hills where the cable antennas are.

The FCC at one time had some maps available. The harbour and airport area was originally chosen to link with Sunnyvale, etc tracking capability, dependent upon elevation above sea level, because of LOS capability e.g. not dependent upon ‘bounce’.

The primary broadcast transmission locations are at the highest elevations in the bay area. LOS [line of sight] is a somewhat misunderstood term. It is not can you visually see it. The goal is to see if a ‘straight’ physically unobstructed line can be constructed in space between the broadcast point and the elevated receiving point. The generated signal strength, location of interference patterns, etc. and the amplified discriminated received pattern determines quality. TMI, huh.

OK, a couple of suggestions, if you are interested in checking out if your location might offer sufficient signal capability. Use a topographic map and find your home location to determine true elevation (above sea level) and determine bearings. [The visual appearance from your ground location will probably mislead you in determining elevation and true north. Remember the sunrise and setting point angle is determinate on time of year. A compass will give you true north.] FAA flight maps will give you minimums transiting to HMB airport [adjust accordingly] and also give you exact topographic coordinates for the airport. You can easily obtain the location, elevation, etc of the transmission locations and towers. From there it is a simple and quick geometry problem.  A visual azimuth will tell you if there are any near hard targets between you and the signal. It may also indicate your the best locations on your property / house for antenna location. 

If you are analytically oriented, you can do all this sitting at your computer and then look out of the appropriate window.

If you are not an analytical, print hard copies of the maps. Use a kid’s protractor, pencil to draw lines and a compass. Then look out of the windows in the indicated directions.

If neither of the above is for you [for a rough idea], buy or borrow an antenna of say 2 metre size, a good small portable B&W;TV [hard to find today], and see if you can receive broadcast VHF channel 11, KNTV NBC, antenna directed in the true direction of SF Sutro Tower from any part of you highest unobstructed part of the house. If that is ok, buy a pre-amp (about $60) and see if you can ‘detect’ the HDTV signal [11.1, 11.2].

Hardware requirements depend on what you want. I pick up: HDTV in the Bay area (SF, OA, SJ); VHF/UHF to a radius maximum including Sacramento. I haven’t had the time to play with amplifying the reception sufficiently for HDTV from Sacramento, yet.

I’m still using the same hardware I installed over a dozen years ago as a protest against the actions of the then cable operator. I brought the cable cutter and the end of the cable that I had literally cut to end my cable service, to the City Council meeting as a ‘visual aid’.  I had verified that OTA and satellite were viable before the protest. Afterward then, I couldn’t imagine giving up full stereo sound.

I had the first demo of HDTV roughly twenty years ago by Sony – today it is real and growing! Today, I couldn’t imagine not having complete HDTV.

Ken Johnson

Letter: Comcast Cable TV quality problems?

Hey, you’ve been ‘comcasted’! I am surprised that anyone would put up with this or after the slide bungle, their Internet non-service.

DSL was up faster, [especially if directly using IP addresses rather than going through their DNS Servers]. 

I receive local stations OTA [Over The Air] with an antenna at roughly 50’ above sea level. The antennas that Comcast uses are in the hills. So anything I receive would definitely be available to them. From what has been said, there appears that little improvement was made to the system in the past 25 years. It also sounds like Comcast has not re-aligned their antennas.

Cable 13 - KICU, broadcast 36, should look as good as any station they offer. I normally watch local stations only in HDTV format and it is a great quality picture and sound. I can receive OTA at HDTV: most are at 1080i, some at 720p and some of the 6 KQED PBS stations are at 480i.

Cable 3 KNTV NBC, 4 KRON and 5 KPIX CBS should look perfect.  It would take an effort not to receive KNTV NBC as beautiful; their signal is so strong and broadcast height! KNTV NBC moved their broadcast transmitter FROM San Jose TO San Francisco months ago.

It sounds like your best alternative, if you want to stay on cable, would be to go to a HMB City Council meeting and address the City Council in mass from the podium with your problem.  And remind Council Person Naomi Patridge of her personal debt on this problem.

Eleven years ago, the cable system and contract was up for a complete re-write. Then Councilmen Mr. Larry Patterson and Mr. Stan Pasterino sided with me and Mr. Roger Goodrich to hold the cable operator and new contract to greater accountability for performance, etc. Mrs. Patridge deferred to trusting the cable operator rather than accountability!  Mrs. Patridge is the only member on the City Council today who voted then for the Cable Operator.

Well, back to the Stanley Cup playoffs on NBC for a few minutes – its beautiful, just like being there, if you are not on Comcast!

Photos: Middle school groundbreaking at Cunha

Finally! It has only taken a decade to get a shovel above the ground for the new intermediate school.

I do wonder, if CUSD Board members Dwight Wilson and Jolanda Schreurs had not ‘learned’ in the survey last October that a Parcel Tax couldn’t win till the school site was changed, if this would have happened.

I also wonder if the Parcel Tax wins in June, whether they will ‘discover’ some reason to change the site again. They did refuse to consider my written request to include a clause that the parcel tax would expire if they changed the school site from the Cunha site or withdrew from receiving Federal Funding (to avoid NCLB accountability).

Did anyone see Ken Jones there?

Anyway, next step is to get school busing restored so the kids can get back and forth to school safely.

Then, someday, a school district that educates the other half of the kids. I can dream.

Ken Johnson

Page 12 of 13 pages « First  <  10 11 12 13 >