Conspiracy Theorem

Maybe it is an inbred distrust of the government, or my disestablishmentarian attitude on all things mandatory but it has started as a flea sized doubt in the back of my mind but now it is pushing further and further to the forefront of a usually placid mind.

Why is it mandatory that we switch to digital tuners on all televisions in February 2009?

Date for ending the digital TV transition is now enshrined into law making it something that MUST happen but again WHY?

If current stances on why this change is so rigid what benefits can we hope to reap from this?

"A format that promises higher picture definition, more programming streams and efficient use of scarce spectrum"

Is the reason for the entire ruckus?

Because there is a finite amount of spectrum and a growing demand for it, effectively managing the available spectrum is a strategic issue for the FCC and the NTIA. It is helpful first to address a common misconception: that spectrum is a concrete and finite resource. Not so. Radio waves do not pass through some ethereal medium called "spectrum"; they are the medium.

Well then what is the nefarious reason behind this change?

If we have all the room we need to run Wifi, cell phones, wireless phones, ECT.

My mind moves to a more worrisome idea, because the digital tuners are going to be in every television set around the country I worry about two way broadcasting.

It would be so easy to conceal something inside that can transmit information about not only our television watching habits but possibly everything about our lives, our electricity usage, and our phone calls. Maybe it could go both ways, imagine that as you watch your TV it is watching you, because of technology it is possible to hide a full video system within a tube of lip-gloss. Lens, transmitter everything in something no bigger than a tube of chapstick.

The percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99, the average American family has 2.24 TV in the house, Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets 66

Would in theory be possible to have eyes on almost every one in America. The average time that the television is on in the home is 6 hours, 47 minutes.

(As many times as I have fallen asleep, or turned the TV on for company I think that is a low estimation)

I would like to believe that the government would give me the privacy that we have been guaranteed however I'm not a sucker. DistrusT.V.

Excellent Theory. I was just thinking about that myself the other day. I am a Christian so I had a different spin on the why but I believe the what is dead on.

I was thinking about the same thing myself...how do i know that the camera on my laptop is off? However the switch on to digital tvs is becouse telemetry systems in the hospitals need the bandwidth to be free from interference. But it does make you think.

All I know is, if someone is bored enough to watch me sit around my house, play with my dog, and use the internet and get high all day, then they need to get a life worse than I do.

Sorry to be peein' in your cereal here but a few quick notes.
I understand what you meant, but just so as you know you should have said anti-establishment attitude. You probably don't care, and if so disregard this, but a disestablishmentarian attitude means that you're fundamentally opposed to the privileges granted to the Church of England (circa 19th cent). Like I said, I caught your meaning, and I'm just pointing that out cause I'm a nerd and I wanted to share a bit of knowledge.

Anyway, there is artificially a finite amount of broadcast spectrum. If two signals of equal bandwidth merge you hear static. In other words, it's like why you can only dock a boat in a specific port, even though the ocean is huge. There are finite limits but for the most part its just a matter of controlling traffic. Point is that by the gov't keeping bandwidths controlled you actually have more freedom, as you are physically capable of finding usable ranges to broadcast a signal where there isn't already traffic. That's a vast over-simplification, but there you have it.

Also, the strategery regarding the FCC and the NTIA is a bit of an old issue. The underlying bit of it is something that perhaps should annoy people. (The auspices of it are...) In order to simplify the issues that arose when we started to broadcast heavily (early 20th cent), it was decided that the executive branch (spec. the president) actually owns the ether. TV and radio stations operate under his good will, which can be reneged when he wants to. Hence, in a state of emergency (or technically whenever he feels like it) he can demand the broadcast of a specific message.

The medium that radio wave travel through is actually the atmosphere (which in turn is kind of literally the ether). The spectrum discussed is a mathematical conception of how light/energy beams work. The color red is physically significantly smaller than the color purple. Smaller still are the things we can't see (I want to say this in order largest to smallest) infrared, radio waves, x-rays, gammy rays, etc. The signal from the left side of the radio dial is actually smaller than that of the right side of the dial.

Minor point, our electricity usage is monitored. I get a bill for kilowatt hours worth of usage every month. There is a little meter that moves up and down as I use electricity. Also, Google and Facebook both track your internet usage and keeping huge piles of data stocked up at any given time (I can't find the name just now, but there was even a gov't black project brought to light whose stated aim was to build a database of knowledge on all American citizens, in part through trudging through such info-dumpsites).

Anyway, say you put a camera in the digital converter boxes. How would you ensure that the person was facing it. I frequently have the TV on as background noise while using my computer, neither I nor my computer would be visible from any point on my TV. And I'm likely to put the converter box somewhere random and tucked out of the way. The cameras they would be using (or at least commercially available cameras that small) are fucking horrible when it comes catching fine detail. My TV habits themselves aren't exactly subversive, and neither are yours. There just isn't enough subversive TV to begin with for them to be.

As far as being distrustful of the gov't, I agree with the general point. I oppose traffic cameras and other such overt monitoring of public places. I also agree that one should kill their TV. 6 1/2 hours is far too much time in front of the idiot box. Finally, I agree with distrust of the powers-that-be in the media. If you don't already know about it, read up on DRM (Digital Rights Mutilation) and the nonsense Sony tried to pull. The short version is, they tried to market selling people a backdoor into their computers. Also, the new iPhones can be directly and remotely controlled by Apple. In other words, I think your off base with the digital switch over (which, incidentally, I oppose for other reasons) but there is certainly scary shit out going on out there.

what paul said.
The government already has enough methods of spying on you than putting a digital converter box in the houses of people who don't purchase cable or satellite, and the methods in which they could implement it are faulty at best anyway.
Now, the ACTA on the other hand...

This is a bit off-topic, but hell this was a dead thread that I shouldn't have posted to originally anyway. Anyway, I had missed ACTA, but damn that's some scary stuff. You know somethings bad when the U.S.ofA. is bypassing the WTO. Anyway, it's something of a pet peeve of mine when people talk about shadowy conspiracy that are doing things completely out in the open (like the Masons for instance, who openly acknowledge their members). Here you've got a conspiracy where all we have is a single paper that only hints at whats going on...
Anyway, thanks for scaring the crap out of me.

In the words of those enfant terribles of the rock world (Chili Peppers) Throw away your television NOW.... if you know what's good for you that is.

it doesnt really matter does it, if one thing i have taken from the book its this

its going to happen, why cause we will let it hapen, people say his book is irrelevent today, i disagree its not the world he portrays that i agree with but his knowledge of human behaviour, the novel is scary because its all too possible, due to the fact orwell understood human behaviour and the minds as a collective. we will let it happen, our civil rights and liberties will be eroded little by little, because no one makes a stand and those few who will make a stand are not supported

let it happen theirs already camera's that can record you conversations, in leeds alone the u.k govenment ok 2000 spy bugs to be used in public areas and as of next year the police will have UAV survailence drones, as for two way recording in your t.v, sets who knows i dont buy it yet! but im fairly sure that they are already cooking up another means of control, if you dont like it leave the societies that are doing it,