What's Really Behind the Switch to Digital TV?

A humorously serious look at life’s trials & tribulations,
American politics, religion, and other social madnesses by Beth Isbell.

Moderator: roxybeast

Post Reply
User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

What's Really Behind the Switch to Digital TV?

Post by roxybeast » June 12th, 2009, 7:19 pm

What's Really Behind the Switch to Digital TV?
by Beth Isbell ©2009


Today, June 12, 2009, is the "big switch" to digital TV - or as I see it ... the government is murdering my TV! There's no good reason to make everybody switch. Purportedly, they want to free up and sell the analog bandwith to google, yahoo, microsoft, verizon & other providers. (See, e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-b ... 14710.html) Maybe it's just easier to compress digital signals and therefore more channels can be made available. Or maybe they want to make it easier for homeland security to monitor transmissions. Whatever the case, the real reasons behind the switch have not and are not being disclosed and the government isn't talking.

In the meantime, poor people suffer ... the many who can't afford converters, disabled or elderly who can't easily get to the stores. Yes, there are coupons, if you can actually get them after a 6-12 week wait. But having a converter box does not mean your TV will still work ... in a lot of cases, you may still need to upgrade your antenna, which a lot of poor, elderly & disabled families can't afford. Digital signals will not reach as far and will not service some rural areas that analog reached. And the larger problem of technological obsolescence - remember, all those handheld TVs that we bought to take camping or to use in the case of emergency - they are all now useless trash. Some sets don't work even with the converter box, just more useless trash. People that sell new TVs may like this, people that have to replace their set, don't. I've found it's actually quite useful to have a battery operated TV in an emergency, but that may not be possible or affordable anymore.

Now, instead of getting a full analog wave, we get a digital sample of it - which may improve picture quality, but as any audio engineer will tell you, samples lessen sound quality. But, gosh, isn't the picture pretty! Chances are your sound quality may actually improve if you had a poor antenna or receiver, but for audiofiles who had the right equipment, the sound quality will almost assuredly diminish.

The government's failure & refusal to fully disclose the real true reasons behind requiring this "switch" should make everybody pause & wonder why? Just know that it's not being done to make your picture better ... that's just a side effect or window dressing or sales pitch to make you temporarily happy and not question what their true motives & real reasons are. In fact, it's classified!

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I do wonder why the truth is being withheld. It should make all of us wonder & demand answers.

Digital pictures (a series of dots) can be far more easily manipulated than analog waves. Not that they will be or anyone intends to, but just a fact. There are reports that new digital TVs can support two-way transmissions - you can see the picture, but they can see you. I don't know that this latter point have been proven or can be verified, but just letting you know what the conspiracy nuts are saying, and one can imagine how some folks in the government spy agencies might even find such a prospect appealing. Big Brother, probably not, but maybe. I'm not sure how you could prevent this in your TV, but if using a computer or laptop, I guess you could tape over the built-in camera. :)

One educated guess, which is far less sensational, is that terrorists (or even law abiding citizens) that could broadcast messages to each other using analog technology will no longer be able to do so without being monitored - digital signals will be tightly regulated - and with the new switch being required, if you're out there sending analog transmissions, you no longer have any valid or legitimate business purpose to do so - i.e., no valid, legitimate, reason or defense to avoid monitoring. Privacy laws that currently prevent eavesdropping or wiretapping without a warrant will likely be re-written to freely allow this type of monitoring under the guise of national security without regard for legitimate free speech or privacy concerns or protections. It also makes it far easier for government security officials to monitor all digital transmissions, since they will be able to be easily routed to locations set up for monitoring. Those pesky little analog transmissions are not so easily collected.

I'm not ready to hop on board with the conspiracy theorists eager to find sinister motive & declare that Big Brother is here, but you really do have to wonder why the "free press" is not demanding real answers or why any of the real reasons behind the digital switch are classified.

Peace,
Beth

User avatar
Barry
Posts: 679
Joined: August 14th, 2008, 9:12 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Barry » September 16th, 2009, 11:43 am

You know, I think you're onto something. I, too, had an inkling it wasn't exactly for the reasons put forth. Thanks for the possible "why"s to the "what for."
We waited 'til the last minute, purchasing our converter boxes on the 11th.
You're right about the sound quality. It now sucks. Appropriate sleeping volume used to be 3. Now it's something like 6 or 7, depending on the station.
I may purchase some thick black paper to tape over the screen when I want my privacy, as I'm sure that two-way transmission thing could easily be rigged to work when the set is off. It would be stupid not to.:)

Peace,
Barry

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » September 22nd, 2009, 3:29 am

Barry ... I haven't bought a converter & probably never will ... just my small meaningless form of protest! I get all my news, TV, movies, etc. from the internet now. I don't think two-way monitoring is occurring or likely will anytime soon, if ever. But you never know. Beth

Post Reply

Return to “The Pregnant Pope”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests