Digital TV Conversion Mandate

Paulie

Diamond Member
May 19, 2007
40,769
6,382
1,830
I haven't seen a discussion about this on the board.

What are people's thoughts on this?
 
It's stupid, another way for someone to make a buck off you. I am just tossing out my TV like all the other smart people.
 
I think it goes beyond just making a buck.
 
It's just wrong. I don't have a dog in the fight, I've already got digital, it's just wrong to force.

My complaint as well. They should have just waited until everyone had a digital TV (many already are but they are fooled into buying a stupid box anyway) then just made the switch. Then they advertise it with nothing but false advertising (digital media is NOT better quality than analog media, it's just smaller) that tricks even more people into buying those stupid boxes (which are mostly just signal boosters anyway). I watch most of my stuff online anyway and my TV is for DVD's and video games so no big loss for me. Anyone with internet can find better entertainment online, and if you spend a little money you can get NetFlix then just watch all the movies to, unless you are like me and just watch the pirated versions (sick of and protesting theater prices).

Special notice: Most likely your TV won't be effected, almost all TVs made since 2000 have the digital signal converters already, anything made in Europe from 1998 will as well.
 
With universal digital, cable and telecommunication companies can closely monitor everyones' individual viewing habits, and they could theoretically target not just specific markets, but specific HOUSEHOLDS with precise advertising.

You could literally be receiving different advertising than your neighbors.

I can't for the life of me understand what the benefits could possibly be for us.

Something just seems strange about discontinuing all analog broadcasting. It's almost as if they want to obtain complete control over the analog airways for something else.
 
By "they" I mean the government, specifically. I don't understand why they'd even get involved in something like this, otherwise. Not to mention, where they even get the constitutional authority.
 
With universal digital, cable and telecommunication companies can closely monitor everyones' individual viewing habits, and they could theoretically target not just specific markets, but specific HOUSEHOLDS with precise advertising.

You could literally be receiving different advertising than your neighbors.

I can't for the life of me understand what the benefits could possibly be for us.

Something just seems strange about discontinuing all analog broadcasting. It's almost as if they want to obtain complete control over the analog airways for something else.

Oookay .... put down the pot.

The change was planned a looooong time ago, it was done so they could sell more air space (the frequencies they transmit on) to more stations. This won't interest most viewers so of course we aren't going to add our taxes to the pool. So the companies had to come up with the scare (upgrade or lose your signal) advertising to get people to be stupid and buy the boxes, thus increasing their profits. However, the biggest profits they are getting are from the TV stations having to switch over NOW instead of the original completion schedule. This means that we are now getting lower quality TV (more ads less shows) to pay for it, so free TV is just going to suck more. Now, who are 'they', the electronics companies of course, a few of them, who specialize in ... dum dum dum ... broadcast digital electronics (I hate specializations). Guess who owns these companies ... dum dum dum ... one is owned Gore.
 
Right. Because what they sold it to us as, is exactly how it really is. :rolleyes:

And I barely smoke pot anymore. I'm probably TOO sober right now as I type this.

I naturally have very little trust in anything the government does, specifically something like this where they have no business sticking their fucking noses.
 
Right. Because what they sold it to us as, is exactly how it really is. :rolleyes:

And I barely smoke pot anymore. I'm probably TOO sober right now as I type this.

I naturally have very little trust in anything the government does, specifically something like this where they have no business sticking their fucking noses.

Well ... a good way to figure it out, anytime something just seems too silly but there is for some strange reason a huge band wagon about it, there is one person profiting from it who just happens to be in the government, in this case (again) it's Gore. Like the recycling thing, he's profiting hugely from it while we are all paying a small fortune in taxes, but the program does nothing to save the environment. Digital signals were already planned, he just found a way to push it into the government so he could make a quick buck again, and probably paid off Bush unless Bush is really THAT stupid.
 
Writing off the possibilities of advertisement targetting with this system is naive.

If you want to talk about doing it for an extra buck, it would actually make the MOST sense in validating that reasoning.

Advertising is already targetted down to various markets, why not specify it even more if you can? Afterall, what would business be without advertising power?
 
Well ... a good way to figure it out, anytime something just seems too silly but there is for some strange reason a huge band wagon about it, there is one person profiting from it who just happens to be in the government, in this case (again) it's Gore. Like the recycling thing, he's profiting hugely from it while we are all paying a small fortune in taxes, but the program does nothing to save the environment. Digital signals were already planned, he just found a way to push it into the government so he could make a quick buck again, and probably paid off Bush unless Bush is really THAT stupid.

So backroom deals being made in congress, and Gore possibly washing Bush's balls is totally normal, but suspecting the corporations of trying to more closely target advertising audiences is for stoners?
 
Writing off the possibilities of advertisement targetting with this system is naive.

If you want to talk about doing it for an extra buck, it would actually make the MOST sense in validating that reasoning.

Advertising is already targetted down to various markets, why not specify it even more if you can? Afterall, what would business be without advertising power?

There is a HUGE flaw with that scenario, well a few. Of course you need to know about technology well enough to understand them. First, there isn't enough air space for it, bandwidth limits cannot exceed our technological limits and even after the switch the broadcast stations will be limited to about 100 total in any given region. Secondly, and the reason Google doesn't even do it, the tracking of all that info for each person, their buying trends, their household needs, etc., would take terabytes worth of data for EACH household. Which to this day there is no way to store and maintain that much information unless there was one person per household tracking it. It is IMPOSSIBLE, though I wish it was possible myself because then I would have the memory needed to complete my AI program, but it simply is not possible with our current tech.
 
There is a HUGE flaw with that scenario, well a few. Of course you need to know about technology well enough to understand them. First, there isn't enough air space for it, bandwidth limits cannot exceed our technological limits and even after the switch the broadcast stations will be limited to about 100 total in any given region. Secondly, and the reason Google doesn't even do it, the tracking of all that info for each person, their buying trends, their household needs, etc., would take terabytes worth of data for EACH household. Which to this day there is no way to store and maintain that much information unless there was one person per household tracking it. It is IMPOSSIBLE, though I wish it was possible myself because then I would have the memory needed to complete my AI program, but it simply is not possible with our current tech.

Do you really believe that only things you KNOW exist, are possible?
 
Thoughts:

1. Let the market take care of the shift to digital broadcasting, not the government.

2. The Government is subsidizing people to buy digital sets. If you are pro-liberty, you are against this.
 
Well ... a good way to figure it out, anytime something just seems too silly but there is for some strange reason a huge band wagon about it, there is one person profiting from it who just happens to be in the government, in this case (again) it's Gore. Like the recycling thing, he's profiting hugely from it while we are all paying a small fortune in taxes, but the program does nothing to save the environment. Digital signals were already planned, he just found a way to push it into the government so he could make a quick buck again, and probably paid off Bush unless Bush is really THAT stupid.
I am totally ignorant about this subject but I had heard somewhere that the change frees up radio signals for use by emergency responders. That seemed like a good reason for the change.
I also remember hearing a bout a lawsuit brought forward some months ago by a community broadcast chanel, something about the UVH channel not being converted by the boxes.

Know anything about that?

I don't have cable or satellite and my TV is about 20 years old. The converter box might not even work for it. I hope I don't have to go out and buy a brand new TV or do without TV. I don't watch that much but there are some programs I really enjoy.
 
Thoughts:

1. Let the market take care of the shift to digital broadcasting, not the government.

2. The Government is subsidizing people to buy digital sets. If you are pro-liberty, you are against this.

I agree. After seeing the first mention of the pushing the switch I just didn't care either way myself, but when I saw those 'coupons' offered by the government from our taxes that's when I got pissed, big time.

The worst thing about it is that money is already spent, the companies that got the money will never have to return it, and the coupons are expiring before people can even use them as well. So our government just gave these corporations a bunch of free money at our expense without even asking us!

Bottom line, TV is a luxury, it's not required to survive. You won't die if you can't get TV, you won't starve, you won't run out of water or air, so it's not important enough to waste money on. The advertisements do not actually increase sales by nearly as much now as they once did, except on cable where people go to specific stations for these ads. Most advertising is moving to online, ever notice how you only see about thirty commercials repeated all day on TV now? So who cares if someone can't get to watch TV anyway, I sure as hell don't give a rats ass if some poor person can't watch the soaps when they should be at work anyway!
 
I agree. After seeing the first mention of the pushing the switch I just didn't care either way myself, but when I saw those 'coupons' offered by the government from our taxes that's when I got pissed, big time.

The worst thing about it is that money is already spent, the companies that got the money will never have to return it, and the coupons are expiring before people can even use them as well. So our government just gave these corporations a bunch of free money at our expense without even asking us!

Bottom line, TV is a luxury, it's not required to survive. You won't die if you can't get TV, you won't starve, you won't run out of water or air, so it's not important enough to waste money on. The advertisements do not actually increase sales by nearly as much now as they once did, except on cable where people go to specific stations for these ads. Most advertising is moving to online, ever notice how you only see about thirty commercials repeated all day on TV now? So who cares if someone can't get to watch TV anyway, I sure as hell don't give a rats ass if some poor person can't watch the soaps when they should be at work anyway!
Not all TV is soaps. TV is also informative and educative. It may be a luxury but then some people say that internet access is a luxury. Yet, those without internet are becoming more and more marginalized. For example, some large employers in my state will only accept online job applications and resumes.
The internet is more useful than TV but they both serve important purposes and those who are denied one or the other or both because of economic reasons do suffer.
 
Last edited:
I am totally ignorant about this subject but I had heard somewhere that the change frees up radio signals for use by emergency responders.

This pretty much touches on where my other suspicions lie.
 
I am totally ignorant about this subject but I had heard somewhere that the change frees up radio signals for use by emergency responders. That seemed like a good reason for the change.
I also remember hearing a bout a lawsuit brought forward some months ago by a community broadcast chanel, something about the UVH channel not being converted by the boxes.

Know anything about that?

I don't have cable or satellite and my TV is about 20 years old. The converter box might not even work for it. I hope I don't have to go out and buy a brand new TV or do without TV. I don't watch that much but there are some programs I really enjoy.

There's the problem that they don't tell you about. Your TV being 20 years old you will have to buy more equipment, not just the box, or spend your money more wisely and get a new TV. I recommend that if you have hi-speed internet (1.5 mbps or more) go to Hulu - Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free. or find another streaming site, then you can get your faves on demand instead of waiting for specific dates and times anyway. Hulu is 100% free and 100% legal, and they have almost all broadcast TV shows available plus a bunch of movies to.

The UVH lawsuit I have not heard of, mostly because I just don't pay much attention to lawsuits anymore since that stupid "spilled coffee on my lap" suit made me lose faith in our justice system. But you are right in the first part, well partially, it frees up a LOT of air space since our current technology has a limited bandwidth still (we need huge frequencies) which can be used for just about anything. The emergency radio part however won't actually be needed, it's a scare tactic used to push it through legislation faster. In reality even during the big disasters we still only use about half of the emergency frequencies we have available, since coordination efforts are best broadcast on the same frequency or they won't know what everyone is doing (one of the problem we had with 9-11 rescue was because everyone was on a different frequency), so technically it would be a bad thing if we did use up all the emergency frequencies we already have, it was just to scare the idiots in charge into pushing it through faster. Gore may be a greedy bastard but he's intelligent, very intelligent, and has found many ways to manipulate people, this is just one of such manipulations.
 

Forum List

Back
Top