Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
Right. Because what they sold it to us as, is exactly how it really is.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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 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.