Conspiracy Theory--are you safe?

@dragon54u (31634)
United States
March 27, 2009 7:59am CST
I didn't know where to put this--perhaps we should have a category called "nut jobs" or "put on your tin foil hat" But I don't think it is that far out... Why the big push for HDTV, to the point where everyone who wants to watch tv much either buy an HD or a converter box? Some people say it's because they want the analog airwaves for radio. Others say it's because HD televisions and the converter boxes allow the government to eavesdrop on every household that has them, even when they are not turned on. I don't find this hard to believe at all. What do you think? Is the mandatory HD television or converter box a way for the government to intrude and monitor the citizens or am I a whack job for even entertaining the thought?
1 person likes this
10 responses
@krajibg (11922)
• Guwahati, India
16 Apr 09
Well this is particularly related to your country, but I am surprised that TV like things are mandatory. Is it really so?
1 person likes this
@krajibg (11922)
• Guwahati, India
16 Apr 09
Ya, that is not life at all. I wonder how people keep mum on certain issues at home. Its really scary.
@kellyjeanne (1576)
• United States
7 Apr 09
My cable company ~ Cox ~ doesn't charge for HD. The conversion is free. Nor did I have to buy a converter box. I feel very fortunate because of this. Which company is charging you for HD? What a ripoff! Aren't they getting enough of our money? Purrs, Catwoman=^..^= & Mija
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
7 Apr 09
I had actually meant to say Digital TV. People who have "analog" tv's, which I think are all those without HD, have to get a converter box which costs money or have some sort of cable or satellite service or their tv's will just be filled with snow. I don't think this is fair, shoving it down our throats like this and tell the broadcast companies what they have to do. That's why I'm suspicious of it!
• United States
16 Apr 09
Yea, I know what you meant, hon. My cable company didn't charge at all for the coversion, nor did we have to buy conversion boxes. I think that's unfair of your cable company. That is a ripoff I think! Purrs, Catwoman=^..^= & Mija
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
27 Mar 09
Actually it's not HD TV, it's digital. Digital is far more accurate by reducing the signal to a very specific wavelength. Take the old analog radios for instance. As you dialed them in you could often have 2 channels coming in at the same time making it nearly impossible to understand either. With digital that's not a problem. It allows there to be more stations transmitting in an area without the threat of those overlapping signals , has less static & a better picture. How many people actually use an antenna anyways? Satellite & cable users don't need the converter box, they're already digital.
1 person likes this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
27 Mar 09
Actually if they'd pay attention to the commercials there's a number to call to get a government voucher which lets you get the converter for next to nothing. Of course if you panic before you get to the end of the commercial you wouldn't see that.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
27 Mar 09
There are millions of people using antennas. They can't afford a new tv or cable so they "make do" with regular tv. There was a woman in the paper who could not afford a converter box, she was old and had nothing to spare. Why jam it down everyone's throats? Sure, it might be a better signal but we should have a choice. This insistence that everyone must have digital is highly suspicious to me. And thanks for the correction, sometimes I mistake one term for another especially when it comes to electronics.
1 person likes this
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
28 Mar 09
I think the only conspiracy here... is about all the companies associated with television... to become rich by forcing everyone to buy a HD TV or a converter box. It also save money for the television channels not to have to broadcast on two different airwaves. They did the same thing with the mobile phones. We bought analog phones in the nineties... and then they forced us to buy digital phones. They do it with everything. When they invented the CD player... they stopped making vinyl records to force us to buy a CD player. When they invented the DVD player... they stopped putting movies on video to force us to buy a DVD player. Every year they make bigger computer's programs requiring more memory to force us to buy a new computer every 3 years. Every time they change the technology... 6 billion people are forced to go to the shop to buy the latest gadget. Is it any wonder that we are poor? While a few keep getting richer at our expense. Bill Gates has been sucking the money out of our pockets for 15 years by simply making his programs bigger each year.
1 person likes this
• Australia
29 Mar 09
Turntables are thirteen to the dozen. I can pick one for free every so often in my garbage depot. The new ones cost a bit more because they have new technology in them so that you can plug them in your computer and make a digital copy of your vinyl record. For my part I replaced most of my vinyl records with CDs back in the nineties. And my computer is 7 years old. lol
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
28 Mar 09
You've got a point there! Did you know that you can still buy turntables but they are very expensive? I chose not to get a new tv but cable is about the only way you can get any reception here. If I end up dumping the cable to save money I'll get a converter box and rabbit ears and put up with poor reception. I believe they have a long list of things to introduce and they stagger them to keep the money flowing. They already have "new and improved" for everything we use and are just waiting for the right time to get us to spend more money. I refuse to play the game, I'm very behind most of my neighbors in the technology department. I've had this computer for 6 years now.
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
30 Mar 09
I question everything...and I listen to the conspiracy theorists, and wait, and watch, and weigh the odds, the likelihood, the plausibility. More and more often lately, those who're called conspiracy theorists, have been right. Not about everything, but on enough. Anyway, I've heard a rumor that...in Germany, HD tv causes mysterious seizures, maybe comas? And I've been observing. I can watch HD videos online, and some of our channels are now in HD. They say the picture's better, but I haven't noticed it being much different than regular cable. It's POSSIBLE that the HD tech, the converter boxes, television, could be installed with devices that might record what we watch. That's simple enough to do, but I'm not sure that it'd have the ability to transmit, to be entirely useful. And that's the detail we'd need to know to confirm an idea like that. It's easy to plant "bugs" if that's the goal...which'd be rather despicable, but I dunno. You're not crazy to consider the notion -- question everything. I'm just not sure of the likelihood. I mean, what's to stop people from poking around and finding out if the idea's got any roots in truth? Why risk that?
1 person likes this
• United States
30 Mar 09
*tips my imaginary hat* Thankee. I do try to encourage others to not feel awkward about questioning things...not sure how many people actually listen to me on that, but I'll keep encouraging critical, open thought anyway xD
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
30 Mar 09
I like the way you think--question and verify. We need more people like you.
@jesssp (2712)
• Canada
27 Mar 09
I always just assumed the basis was money - like switching somehow makes the corporations more money. I don't think you're a nut job, who doesn't think the government has hidden agendas in most everything they do? Although I really don't think that spying is the agenda w/ HDTV, I'm still thinking it must be money. But I also live in Canada so what do I know!
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
27 Mar 09
I was corrected, it is digital tv. HD TV is just one that has the optimum picture. But I can go farther and sound even more paranoid when I theorize that HD televisions have cameras and microphones in them. I'm more than half serious.
@jesssp (2712)
• Canada
31 Mar 09
Oh yes. I knew what you meant and went right ahead and typed in anyways.
@loudcry (1043)
• India
11 Apr 09
The mandatory clause makes it look very suspicious.
@schulzie (4061)
• United States
28 Mar 09
I had not really ever thought about this to be honest with you. That really is a frightening thought. Now I really have to think about it. Hmmm... Have a nice day and happy myLotting!!!
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
28 Mar 09
It is something I've heard people discuss and it occurred to me that it isn't so far out, given our government's efforts to make us helpless and dependent.
@hotsummer (13837)
• Philippines
28 Mar 09
i don't know about this hdtv. it is sold here locally but not much people owns that already. i am still happy with the tv we have. i don't think i need this new one. the latest we have is so great already and happy with it. even with new release of latest television our old one are not that far behind. it is still as modern as those new release. it just like they are far more advanced in some ways, but with the ones i am using now. they are still great and makes me feel that i am getting a good time watching with my latest television.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
28 Mar 09
I should have said digital tv service. All our televisions are changing to digital service and we need HD tv or a converter box to watch, or we have to have a cable tv service. I just wonder why the insistence that everyone convert to digital. I'm suspicious.
@wolfen13 (33)
• United States
28 Mar 09
Well I agree that there is technology capable of observing from afar. It would make sense. and its plausible that such things exist. I doubt though that you'd find them in your TV. I mean why bother with that when they can have satelites that zoom in close to the ground. Chances are if I wanted to be able to observve someone without them knowing I was doing it (assuming I was a big government) I'd look for puting some top secret spy gadget in something that would most likely always be on the person. Like a cell phone. I bet that would cover the majority of the people in the USA alone. I mean who doesn't have one. But TV via a signal. I can't see that being efficient. But I can see that it may well be possible.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
28 Mar 09
It would be much cheaper and more efficient for them to do it through television. We are a nation of couch potatoes, and nearly everyone has a television. They may not have cell phones but they have a TV! Even people who are very poor and don't have enough food will save to buy a television.