With digital TV soon to be the only broadcast medium, do think OTA will regain some market share at the expense of cable and satellite? I used to get about 7 channels on OTA and now I'm up to 23. It would be nice to see even more channels like ESPN or CNN or something similar to broadcast free over the air. What do you think? I figure movies are available on itunes and netflix online so there's not nearly as much reason to have cable. I know I don't or want to watch 100 channels.

I think the percentage of people dumping cable or satellite will be small. Two people I know have dumped cable but that was because of the recent price increase. Other people are hooking up convertor boxes to their second TV for the sub-channels that carry weather reporting. People that like sports won't give up ESPN, & ESPN is making lots of money. They charge the cable companies and the advertisers big bucks. And remember sports are also on TNT TBS and NFL channels in HD. A few women are watching shows like MONK and The Closer.HDTV is very popular & the satellite companies are rushing to provide locals in HiDef. I believe that OTA will not gain very much market share. We'll see.

I'm retired and don't want an additional bill to pay each month. (no cable here)
Since I've improved my antenna and wiring from reading these forums, I have gone from 3 analog ch, up to 10 digital ch (including subs) :)
I don't watch sports, except an occasional Sunday afternoon golf major (CBS, NBC). I'm more into computers and technology than sports.

Wireless is the future.

Wireless is the future.

Hmmm . . . broadcast in radio frequency, use an antenna to receive . . .


sounds like wireless to me.

You are a pretty sharp human being. ;)

Once I got an HDTV two years ago, followed a few months later with digital transmissions from the local stations, I almost abandoned sat TV. Then I started watching HD NASCAR races on FOX and ABC until they switched to ESPN mid season. That was it! I upgraded sat to HD and am somewhat happy with it again. Once my sat service offers Speed in HD, I may drop to the HD only package to save money. My wife says I am an HD snob because I hate to watch anything in SD.
So I use OTA to augment satellite viewing, but still log more time on the locals than on satellite. The biggest change is that I use the sat DVR to record OTA programming so I can skip the commercials.

I think it will make a partial comeback, but not a huge one. Between the potential better picture quality and increasing costs of cable/satellite at a time when people are looking to cut unnecessary expenses, we could see a few more OTA antennas going up in the next few years.

:Dwhen i moved in to my new home back in 1978:D there was no cable in the section of town.
so i had a large vhf-uhf-fm antenna put up got the boston stations fine.
Then in late 1984 Cable came:cool: 32 channels at the time.
Dec 94 cancel cable self install D*
Fast forward to early 99 a severe storm damaged the antenna so bad we had to take it down.
Summer of 07 bought a radio shack VU-185 for $49.00(discontinued in store specials)installed it attic get 17 digital OTA stations on 4 tv's.I probably could get more if i did a chimmney mount like the old antenna was.I use it as back up when satellite fails in an ice storm or a severe t-storm

I don't see much changing in market share. Cable and satellite still hold a strong edge with learning channels (History, TLC, TDC, HDT, etc.), sports (ESPNs, FoxSports, Speed, etc.) and movie/premium channels, which are now bolstered by VOD. If broadcasters ever decided to use their subs for these kinds of offerings, it would kill HD.

Personally, I don't find much of interest on the major networks and live in a deep-fringe area anyway. So maybe that's just my take.

OTA was a great interim solution a few years ago when it was virturally the only source/option for HD programming. Now that that cable and satellite has caught up or surpassed HD programming choices compared to OTA, most individuals will stay with cable/satellite. Those that have always relied on OTA, will probably remain OTA.

I think it will make a partial comeback, but not a huge one. Between the potential better picture quality and increasing costs of cable/satellite at a time when people are looking to cut unnecessary expenses, we could see a few more OTA antennas going up in the next few years.

I'll second that. Whatever comeback OTA makes will be primarily due to economics. But most people will keep their pay TV because it has content they want and can't get from OTA.

One more thing: I think one thing OTA is currently missing is the "killer app" -- the one must-have piece that would convince people to ditch their cable.

I think the OTA HD DVR (like the TR-50) is that killer should it make it to market. I think that could convince a lot of people who are "on the fence" about getting rid of cable/satellite to actually do it.

there wont be any 'ota comeback' in the vt woods where i live. we never had it in the first place:(.
~70 miles to nearest hd/sd stations. over a lot of hills and small mountains.

I hope I'm wrong, but I would be glad if we can hang onto the existing 15% or so OTA only households. Too much FUD floating around, too much money behind cable and sat ready to help us poor consumers "stuck" with an antenna.

The DTV conversion may be too late for the US to reach a critical mass, unlike areas such as Australia and the UK which still have more OTA users than subscription. However, the flagging economy could help, if only more people knew it was available.

Mobile DTV could be the "killer app" that the broadcasters are looking for, but only if we ditch our cars for more train rides. Mobile DTV on the dash could be slightly distracting otherwise. :eek:

Whose ad says "Your world is wireless"? OTA needs to be renamed to Free Wireless HD Streaming Video or something. The UK uses the "Freeview" name. "Off-The-Air" TV is a terrible term to keep using.

I am certain that the UHF TV channels will continued to be used well into the future. The question is whether any of them will remain free or if they will all be auctioned off eventually.

One more thing: I think one thing OTA is currently missing is the "killer app" -- the one must-have piece that would convince people to ditch their cable.

I think the OTA HD DVR (like the TR-50) is that killer should it make it to market. I think that could convince a lot of people who are "on the fence" about getting rid of cable/satellite to actually do it.

+1 combined with ever escalating cable bills.

I think the biggest problem with OTA is that the general public doesn't know crap about it. All the general public has been exposed to is "get a digital box for your rabbit ear TV, because the government is shutting off analog broadcasts in 2009."

The only people who have a financial vested interest in OTA are companies making antennas and antenna installers ...both have huge PR departments and Billions of dollars to promote the product.

Most people don't know:

-That DTV is considerably more robust than analog.

-You'll probably get more local channels with a good antenna than you'll get with digital cable.

-You can get tons of extras, thanks to subchannels.

-It's HD, and it's FREE!!!!

-Antennas, downlead, rotors and pre-amps pre much better than what most people had in the 50s-70s.

For all intensive purposes, OTA is an up hill battle. It's just another alternative, underground technological thing, along with alternative energy, electric cars, C-Band/FTA Sat, Hi-Fi, Vinyl, Tubes, Linux, DIY Computers and overclocking.

America is lazy. Most of us take the path of least resistance: cable TV, Windows, iPod Docs and Dell Computers. Buy it, use it, and when it malfunctions even slightly, throw it out and buy a new one.

I haven't had cable since the 80's when it was free if you wanted to connect your own. After that I've never lived close enough to town to get it.

Since I live too far out in the sticks to get DSL, I would use cable just for the broadband internet and internet phone but the closest cable drop is 25 miles away. Too bad. It would be worth it just to get rid of my tincan & string phone line that goes out when it rains too hard.

I would go with satellite but the satellite internet is way too pricey and useless for voip telephone. The only interest I have in buying pay TV would be to get the Speed channel and the Indycar races on ESPN. Mostly I just watch the seven local PBS channels anyway.

So, I'll just stick with OTA, $20/month phone line and $9/month dialup.

IF ESPN went OTA then many more people would decide that OTA was good enough.

Adding to that list, those already on pay tv

-think their cable is better local reception than they could get with an antenna;

-think their HOA can outlaw antennas.

I watch very little commercials interupted with shows to pay Sat or cable ever again.

There are opening --- It depends -- If broadcast puts on true 1080 HDTV and then runs some good first run movies, sports and other good realtime events -- all in full HD, then they may make it. About the only thing they can compete with is HD and the sub channels. Not sure what they will do with the sub channels, but they could prove to be useful.

In short, they need to differentiate themselves so people will install the equipment and antennas necessary.

For me, I have had DTV and HD cable by far the OTA HD is higher quality. For starters, the sound appears to be much better, probably not as compressed. Not much difference between DTV and digital cable, both fairly good.

Adding to that list, those already on pay tv

-think their cable is better local reception than they could get with an antenna

Which is funny. I live 60 hilly miles from all my locals in Austin. The TVFool info shows six stations in the Austin antenna farm at anywhere between -101 and -108 dBm.

But with a 91XG (UHF) and a YA-1713 (high VHF) stack-mounted about 12' high on the side of my garage just above the roofline, the pictures are great and they lock in fantastically (with the exception of one which usually is fine but occasionally pixelates). Most of the signals are in the 70s to low 90s according to the meter. And there is no amp or pre-amp. The picture blows away what I get on satellite, even satellite with MPEG-4 compression. And there are subchannels to the locals that I don't get at all on satellite.

If I can do this 60 miles of hilly terrain away, imagine what the majority of the population could do. If the TR-50 or other OTA HD DVR with no subscription comes out, works well and is close to what is being hyped, that might be all I need to ditch the dish. That and Netflix, anyway.

Adding to that list, those already on pay tv

-think their cable is better local reception than they could get with an antenna;

-think their HOA can outlaw antennas.Good points!:)

I would go OTA if all of the following were added locally:

ESPN-HD
ESPN2-HD
ESPNUHD
BIGTEN-HD
FSN-HD
CSTV-HD
VS-HD

Dont forget Fox News and the Sci Fi Channel.

... and you will probably never get any of those channels OTA.

Satellite is OTA just not Terrestrial.

How about if OTA does SD digital but more subchannels? Kinda like how MP3 trumped SACD and DVD-A.

I would go OTA if all of the following were added locally:

ESPN-HD
ESPN2-HD
ESPNUHD
BIGTEN-HD
FSN-HD
CSTV-HD
VS-HD
Heh. The problem is, sports channels probably represent close to half the cost of a cable/satellite package. I'll bet ESPN a la carte would cost at least $10 a month.

With digital TV soon to be the only broadcast medium, do think OTA will regain some market share at the expense of cable and satellite?

If gas hits 10 bucks a gallon then cable and satellite will be disconnected. OTA use may go up, but it won't be due to HD.

I think it will make a partial comeback, but not a huge one. Between the potential better picture quality and increasing costs of cable/satellite at a time when people are looking to cut unnecessary expenses, we could see a few more OTA antennas going up in the next few years. I agree with ziggy. Pay TV issuers might lose about 10% of their book of business, but more because of the weakening U.S. economy than because of the emergence of high-quality OTA DTV. Pay TV issuers may expand their offerings of low-cost "stripped" service packages to keep economically-pinched subscribers from cancelling, which is why I don't anticipate them losing more than 10% of their subscriber base.

Satellite is OTA just not Terrestrial.
Well... actually, satellite is FOS (from outer space). ;)
22,300 miles away. There is no air in outer space. When the signals hit the earth's atmosphere, it actually goes through the air, not over, like a terrestrial signal. So I wouldn't agree that satellite is OTA. :D

How about if OTA does SD digital but more subchannels? Kinda like how MP3 trumped SACD and DVD-A.You have to be kidding (again)? More subchannels (multicasting) only degrades the quality of the primary (HD) channel. I'd choose quality over quantity.

You have to be kidding (again)? More subchannels (multicasting) only degrades the quality of the primary (HD) channel. I'd choose quality over quantity.
I keep hearing this, but our local PBS has a primary and 3 sub-channels and still has the best picture quality.

I said "yes" because I know a few people who had no idea about OTA (H)DTV that have since taken interest after seeing the easy results, but most people still think cable is a necessity and won't ditch it even if they only watch the same channels you'd get OTA. I myself can't justify $60+ for the OTA channels plus one or two I might watch from however many more channels of complete crap the cable company sticks in but lots of people seem to be OK with that. The sports-watching demographic has more reason to stick to cable for the additional coverage, but it seems most popular TV shows are still on network TV that's available OTA.

Plus with complete ignorance about antennas and FUD newspaper articles about how "hard" DTV reception is does not help the situation. I agree we should just rebrand it 'wireless TV' for the high-tech future. Anything wireless is cool these days.

IF ESPN went OTA then many more people would decide that OTA was good enough.

Most people missed this, but ESPN was available OTA via subscription to USDTV in five markets for $20 a month. USDTV rented enough bandwidth from local digital broadcasters to support ten STD definition channels, plus Starz for another $6 a month. I thought it was a good idea, but it never flew. That is where the "Hisense" HDTV boxes came from.

I know dozens of people who would dump cable IF they could just get the one cable channel they really like. Unfortunately, it is a different channel for each of them.

I have a great market for OTA because I am in Washington, DC, but the desirable Baltimore broadcast stations are not carried by the DC local cable companies (Comcast, Cox, RCN). Washington is a football town and I have load of OTA customers who subscribe to cable but count on OTA for the out-of-market football games that are not carried on Washington, DC television stations, but my market situation is an abberation.

I keep hearing this, but our local PBS has a primary and 3 sub-channels and still has the best picture quality.

Chalk it up to "production" quality of the source material. Trust me... the bandwidth allocation for each channel is fixed. The more channels multicasted, the less bandwidth available for the primary.

It's a shame they show football or hockey games on PBS. You might see the negative results. ;)

I've dumped my cable, but I don't know anyone else who has. Most people will give up lots of things before they'll give up cable.

You have to be kidding (again)? More subchannels (multicasting) only degrades the quality of the primary (HD) channel. I'd choose quality over quantity.I'm pretty sure he was kidding. Otherwise, why would he compare DVD-A and SACD to MP3? At least I hope he was. :)

I have a low-end E* package to get some cable shows in SD, but my mainstay is OTA. A couple of years ago I charted what I watch for a few weeks and found that more than 90% of the shows were on the major networks. I can suffer with SD for the other 10%.

Well... actually, satellite is FOS (from outer space). ;)
22,300 miles away. There is no air in outer space. When the signals hit the earth's atmosphere, it actually goes through the air, not over, like a terrestrial signal. So I wouldn't agree that satellite is OTA. :D

You have to be kidding (again)? More subchannels (multicasting) only degrades the quality of the primary (HD) channel. I'd choose quality over quantity.

This is actually, what Im proposing. Ditch the HD and move to more subchannels at lower quality.

Lets face it SACD and DVD-A didnt storm the market like MP3 did.

This is actually, what Im proposing. Ditch the HD and move to more subchannels at lower quality.
You're kidding right? I don't think the HD majority would agree with that proposition.

As for MP3 vs. SACD/DVD-A, the reason that failed was:
1) regular CD's sound 'good enough'.
2) MP3's are easily available for download and CD's are easily ripped for convenience.
3) lack of SACD/DVD-A media.
4) and two incompatible formats (I.E. HD-DVD vs. BluRay)

Again... some want quality, others want quantity. I'd prefer the former.

Not kidding.

What is good enough to you is irrelevant.

What you prefer is irrelevant.

What is good enough for the market and what the market will bear is relevant.

Content is KING.

Content is KING.

Irrelevent or not... HD is here. Purists prefer quality over quantity.

Others... would rather have 5 lbs. of feathers instead of gold because there are more feathers. To each their own I guess...

Id rather watch ESPN Monday Night Football and Discovery Channel "feathers" than Wife Swap, Super Nanny and Dancing with the Stars "gold." LOL!

Get real.

Id rather watch ESPN Monday Night Football and Discovery Channel "feathers" than Wife Swap, Super Nanny and Dancing with the Stars "gold." LOL!

Get real.
Get HD. If you want ESPN and Discovery, subscribe to cable/satellite. You won't ever see those networks OTA. LOL!

Id rather watch ESPN Monday Night Football and Discovery Channel "feathers" than Wife Swap, Super Nanny and Dancing with the Stars "gold." LOL!

Get real.
EV,
If you were watching ESPN and Discovery in HD, you would never want to go back to SD. Great content in HD is amazing, but I feel the way you do about Swap and Nanny. DWTS does look pretty good in HD though.

SkiSmuggs, I totally agree that HD is better. What we are discussing is a strategy for commercial viability for OTA. More content choices at SD is a better use of the available bandwidth if you are trying to attract eyeballs.

OTA is already commercially viable. What you're talking about is supporting the network's greed. At least that's how the majority of the people in this sub-forum see it.

I suppose if you're watching on a small analog set, the crappy quality wouldn't bother you so much. But most of the people in this sub-forum are watching on larger, HD sets. That's why it's called "HDTV Technical".

If you're looking for people to agree with you, maybe you'd find more support for your position over in the "non-HDTV" or "CECB" sub-forums. Naturally, the standards and priorities are different over here.

OTA is getting its clock cleaned. Its not thriving its dying. Its not about greed, its about survival.

And providing more variety to the poor man, may not sit well with rich folks with Big Screen Flat Panel HDTVs, but alas....cry me a river.


PS- You will notice that the hottest spot on this "HDTV Technical" subforum is SD Digital to Analog converter boxes.

What a hoot!

:)

Well, then if it's such a big deal maybe those CECB folks ought to start their own forum somewhere else.

Because no matter how big it is to however many people, the other 95% on this forum don't see it the same way.

Anyhow, the CECB folder is separate from the main HDTV Technical forum - and there's a reason for that. The management here even apparently saw it that way. And that's why I say, take the discussion over there if you don't want to be run out of town around here.

It's not a "snob" thing - just try to put yourself in the place of all the others here that don't have much interest in the CECB subject - which, like I said, is 95% of the members here - old and new.

We all, including myself, appreciate your Indoor Antenna sticky thread a lot, but that's because it applies to everybody here who's trying to get good OTA reception.

Hate to say it, but I agree with EscapeVelocity. I think OTA will make somewhat of a comeback due to (and I know you cringe to hear this) ...sub-channels. The majority of OTA viewers don't give a crap about HD, but would love to have more free content. After the switchover, I'm sure we'll see tons of stations utilize sub-channels more, because obviously there's gonna be allot more eyeballs watching their digital channel ($$).



I just hope it doesn't consist of weather channels...

Peace R, I may sound a little agressive sometimes, but its a stream of conciousness thing. I post on political forums alot, and sometimes the rhetoric gets elevated.

I still think that my point is valid and in the best interest of the most people.

I love HD as much as anybody....but content is king.

I dont post in the CECB forum too much.

Am I not allowed to have an opinion that doesnt coincide with most of the forum regulars around here on this issue, that Id be "run out of town?"

Seems a bit extreme.

But I understand "the invasion" aspect. I recognize that there are many more experienced and knowlegable folks around here, which deserve respect.

Hope I didnt hit a raw nerve with anybody.

Back to Hulu. :)

When low power stations switch to digital many if not most of them will have 5 or so SD subchannels. The subchannels might be mostly shopping and similar garbage, but if "content is king" you will be happy. This is a good idea: let the full power stations provide quality HD and the low power stations provide content for content's sake.

Am I not allowed to have an opinion that doesn't coincide with most of the forum regulars around here on this issue, that Id be "run out of town?"

Seems a bit extreme.No, it's just a very touchy subject with a lot of people around here - we're very passionate about it (as you now know ;).)

Normally people would be calm about most subjects, but this is a real hot-button issue here.

If you think this is bad, you should read through the HDTV Programming threads sometime.

..let the full power stations provide quality HD and the low power stations provide content for content's sake.I totally agree with that - except with the low-powered mains that are really good. Some occasionally are. At least one here is.

In the case of PAX, even though it's generally not low-powered, they could add 10 channels for all I care. I couldn't care less about Bonanza reruns.

Quality vs quantity is not all that simple. I will watch a marginal show in HD that I'd blow off if it were in SD. An SD show has to make up in quality writing and storytelling what it lacks in PQ, from my perspective. At least for now, to get me to watch, HD can sometimes get by on good looks, whereas SD has to have more substance.

Hate to say it, but I agree with EscapeVelocity. I think OTA will make somewhat of a comeback due to (and I know you cringe to hear this) ...sub-channels. The majority of OTA viewers don't give a crap about HD, but would love to have more free content. After the switchover, I'm sure we'll see tons of stations utilize sub-channels more, because obviously there's gonna be allot more eyeballs watching their digital channel ($$).



I just hope it doesn't consist of whether channels...

I think you mean *weather* channels ;)

since I'm the OP, let me say this. I was extremely pleased when I got my HD tv, a 42", 1080p Pannasonic. The OTA digital is eye-popping. I also have a CECB on my little tv and am enjoying an incredible increase in clarity. (no matter what the video "can't tell on a 13" tv" purists say. Not to mention going from 7 to 23 channels.

But the point I'm trying to pull out of this discussion isn't ranting about content vs. quality, it's about where is OTA broadcast going? Is there going to be enough new support for the networks to try to add some more programming such as sports only or news only or dancing with the stars only ? In the Minneapolis area I'm not aware of any rerun only OTA broadcast but I might become more of a tv junkie if my old favorites were on again (Hogan's Heroes, Get Smart, Star Trek etc.) They're all on cable but I don't know where they are (if anywhere) locally.

To say OTA viewers don't care about quality is just plain wrong. We want more content and and more HD programming OTA, whether it takes a new broadcast channel or whatever. I don't think we're limited to one or the other. BTW, PBS has some spectacular HD on both sub channels here.

The Baltimore Fox affiiliate is running a re-run sub-channel called "Good life TV" on 45.2, and one of the Washginton DC locals is supposed to start carrying "RTN" which I think stands for RetroTV shortly and has signed up a bunch of TV Land type programs.

I still think the USDTV concept can fly in major markets using low powered transmitters, but it won't be free TV. It will be bargain priced subscription TV.

Update: I see the service is Retro Television Network, and in addition to its own site ( http://www.rtnville.com/shows.html ), a programming and station summary can be found on Wikipedia. They have already signed up about eighty TV stations to carry them on digital subchannels.

OTA was a great interim solution a few years ago when it was virturally the only source/option for HD programming. Now that that cable and satellite has caught up or surpassed HD programming choices compared to OTA, most individuals will stay with cable/satellite. Those that have always relied on OTA, will probably remain OTA.

Ratman, you said it yourself. Sat and Cable are the HD kings, OTA needs to find another niche.

You know I love you Ratman. :)

That sounds like a fantastic channel AntAltMike.

I think that these need to be higher powered though, to catch all the rural folks that arent within reach of cable.

Ratman, you said it yourself. Sat and Cable are the HD kings, OTA needs to find another niche.
And that's the way it will remain (and now FiOS too). Don't expect local OTA to ever provide 70+ channels, let alone HD quality if they multicast. The "niche" are those that rely on OTA only. Digital OTA has been around for 6+ years. For approx 4 or more years, OTA was HD king.

Now that the end is near for analog, there are a lot of "late adopters" that want more quality for free. IMO, I don't see that ever happening. Most of the people won't even install a proper antenna on their roof!

I would hope that local stations do not compromise HD quality on HD primaries, just to satisfy a small portion of the population with multicasted "crap" (with the exception of PBS).

We'll I certainly hope that Football season is HD. ;)

Most of the people won't even install a proper antenna on their roof!

In over 50 years of TV broadcasts, only a small minority of viewers have ever had a properly installed TV antenna system. Most just settled for 3 fuzzy VHFs delivered via twinlead, which more than likely installed improperly. No wonder Americans think OTA is crap.

When every tv has a smart antenna interface.

To say OTA viewers don't care about quality is just plain wrong. We want more content and and more HD programming OTA, whether it takes a new broadcast channel or whatever. I don't think we're limited to one or the other.Yes, we are. There is only so much bandwidth available for any digital channel, and either high quality HD or lots of SD subchannels is the choice.

I am OTA only and I strongly favor Ken's 1st option: quality HD trumps more SD multicasting for sure. However, I am unclear just how saturated the digital broadcast spectrum is over a typical N American city. Is there "physically" room for more channels?

I love playing with OTA, but baseball lives on DirecTV. The dish is here to stay.

Really? I get 4 channels here OTA that regularly show MLB - 3 Chicago (WGN, WCIU and FOX and one Milwaukee (WMLW, I think it is). Add to that my standard definition Dish pack, and there are 3(-4) more (ESPN 1(&2), TBS and Comcast Sports Net).

No, I don't get my pick of watching any game I feel like from the daily MLB schedule, but I do get more baseball than I can even keep up with watching (I can also keep up with all the games inning by inning on the ESPN Interactive thingy that Dish has).

No wonder you would like HD OTA to augment your Dish.

I get 7 channels OTA

ABC
NBC
CBS
PBS
Fox
MyTV
CW (on a subchannel)

Not much variety there.

Got dtv hd, but have rabbit ears for the local sub-channels. We recieved like 22 channels in the Tampa bay area.

I am OTA only and I strongly favor Ken's 1st option: quality HD trumps more SD multicasting for sure. However, I am unclear just how saturated the digital broadcast spectrum is over a typical N American city. Is there "physically" room for more channels? I strongly prefer higher-quality, higher-bandwidth HD video than SD multicasting.

Unfortunately, Congress went overboard in auctioning off too much of the RF spectrum. Of the 18 UHF channel frequencies being eliminated, only 4 went to public safety and emergency services - and as 02/17/09 approaches, thousands of ANALOG low power, Class A and translator stations are going to be shoved into a relatively smaller amount of space competing with ATSC full-power stations. I don't know if some of the remaining NTSC LP/Class A/Translators will end up on low-VHF channels.

If Congress and the White House had used good sense, they would have transferred/auctioned off 9 UHF channels rather than 18. This would have made a much less crowded TV bandwidth, particularly in congested urban areas such as the New York metro area and Los Angeles/Southern California. There's going to be a lot of nasty complaints about co-channel interference and adjacent-channel interference. The legislation was written to benefit cable, satellite, and telecom companies - not the general public or videophiles.

However, I am unclear just how saturated the digital broadcast spectrum is over a typical N American city. Is there "physically" room for more channels?

I don't think the problem is saturation within a city, it's allocating channels between adjacent cities so they don't interfere. They claim that digital channels are less subject to adjacent channel interference and can be packed tighter. We'll just have to trust the FCC.

OTA use will go down. OTA digital is a certified pain in the ass.

And that's great for some freak geek like me who thinks climbing a laddr is A-OK while trying improve my signal.

And that's great for those of us who will sort digital out and not just give up because it doesn't "just work".

But it is friggin terrible for the person who just wants to plug some coax into their TV and call it a day.

Digital OTA is harder to get working than analog OTA, which isn't itself blazing a path to glory right now. So, do the math: it's harder to configure than something similar that already isn't exactly popular.

My parents put up an antenna 30 years ago on their house and it still works great. They did opt for cable installation later and kept the antenna as a backup as well as to feed the rest of the house. Picture wise the antenna always looked better than cable so I installed a switch box for the TV feed (Cable was that bad!). Over the years there were many issues with the cable company. We even tried Direct TV but they too had issues. In my own home I installed an attic antenna hoping that I wouldn't have to use the cable company but it never really worked out till I was able to receive digital OTA. As people come into a cash crunch and if they have already installed an antenna dropping cable or sat is an easy way to save money.

Two days ago my mother bought the Zenith 901 box for a small TV she has in her kitchen. The TV had a little Radio Shack VHF/UHF antenna that sits on top of the TV. Within 5 minutes I had her TV receiving digital OTA and the picture looks great.
Only one local station requires adjustment of the antenna whereas previously she had to fiddle with the antenna on each station. OTA digital isn't always difficult nor is analog always easier as in my mother's case.

Really? I get 4 channels here OTA that regularly show MLB - 3 Chicago (WGN, WCIU and FOX and one Milwaukee (WMLW, I think it is). Add to that my standard definition Dish pack, and there are 3(-4) more (ESPN 1(&2), TBS and Comcast Sports Net).

No, I don't get my pick of watching any game I feel like from the daily MLB schedule, but I do get more baseball than I can even keep up with watching (I can also keep up with all the games inning by inning on the ESPN Interactive thingy that Dish has).

Maybe enough for you, but definitely not for me.

That's why I hired a pro to install my antenna. The technician knew a lot more about antenna installation than I did, and he was comfortable on a ladder, which I'm not. When I got cable and satellite, those were installed by a technician, no sense doing different for OTA.

OTA use will go down. OTA digital is a certified pain in the ass.

And that's great for some freak geek like me who thinks climbing a laddr is A-OK while trying improve my signal.

And that's great for those of us who will sort digital out and not just give up because it doesn't "just work".

But it is friggin terrible for the person who just wants to plug some coax into their TV and call it a day.

Digital OTA is harder to get working than analog OTA, which isn't itself blazing a path to glory right now. So, do the math: it's harder to configure than something similar that already isn't exactly popular.

Digital OTA is harder to get working than analog OTA, which isn't itself blazing a path to glory right now. So, do the math: it's harder to configure than something similar that already isn't exactly popular.
I'm not sure I agree. I've messed with throwing up antennas for analog and digital, and in my experience, while digital may be harder to lock on a signal with, once you do, the picture is ridiculously better.

A lot of people who get fuzzy and ghosted pictures with analog can still get solid clear pictures with digital. Modern digital tuners can lock on a reduced signal and all but eliminate multipath that caused ghosting problems on analog in some cases.

A couple months ago, I threw up two OTA antennas for UHF and high VHF. I'm 60 hilly miles from the "local" towers, and from those six stations my TVFool info gave readings from -101 to -108 dBm. I get a great picture from five of the six and even the sixth is usually fantastic with occasional pixelation -- with no amplification whatsoever. And when I tried this same setup on another set with an analog tuner, the pictures were fuzzy and sometimes ghosted.

Digital may be harder to get a complete lock on at times, but when you get it locked in, it's ridiculous how good it is. I'm a loyal D* customer and even in my "fringe" location OTA is MUCH better in terms of picture quality.

I'm not really a cheerleader for OTA -- I don't care what others do -- but my experience is opposite of yours in terms of being tough to get a decent OTA signal. Maybe the antenna needs to be a little more exactly aimed to get something, but when you get something, you get it all. Unlike the snow and ghosting I get from analog OTA, which I couldn't lock in here at any angle.

As long as downrezzing lives--thank God for OTA!

There is still a small percentage of folks that don't have cable or satellite. After analog is shut off some will subscribe to something but some will manage to get thier antenna working properly with digital TV. And I suspect many of those will find they have a better picture than cable.

Meanwhile, I think the broadcasters will find HDTV/digital becomes more important after the transition when that's all they are sending (OTA or to cable). This will lead them to make it more attractive and easier to receive. And I think they will find it advantageous to have many happy OTA users simply for the better bargaining position on cable carriage.

So, yes, I think after the transition there may be a sudden drop as people defect to cable but then I expect a bit of a resurgence as OTA HD becomes the standard that antenna users rely on. By that time it will just be TV, not some special digital TV.

- Tom

For the seven that voted "Who cares", they need to go to another forum. ;)
This is one of the few nice things you can still say about this country. A wide selection of OTA stations.

That's why I hired a pro to install my antenna. The technician knew a lot more about antenna installation than I did, and he was comfortable on a ladder, which I'm not. When I got cable and satellite, those were installed by a technician, no sense doing different for OTA.

Finding an antenna installer is difficult and in some areas impossible.

I'm not sure I agree. I've messed with throwing up antennas for analog and digital, and in my experience, while digital may be harder to lock on a signal with, once you do, the picture is ridiculously better.

A lot of people who get fuzzy and ghosted pictures with analog can still get solid clear pictures with digital. Modern digital tuners can lock on a reduced signal and all but eliminate multipath that caused ghosting problems on analog in some cases.

I don't disagree on any count.

The problem, though, is that digital OTA requires enough competence to at least run the auto scan. If you live a long distance from the transmitters, it requires enough competence to run the rotator, too. It is a lot more than many folks are going to do.

I'm not really a cheerleader for OTA -- I don't care what others do -- but my experience is opposite of yours in terms of being tough to get a decent OTA signal.

You're west of the Mississippi. Out west you guys get those awesome towers. Over east we get towers that barely peak over the hills. And half the transmitters have mangled radiating patterns to avoid conflicting with other DMAs.

Out west you guys consider it fairly common to receive signals from all stations at 60 mi. Fringe reception isn't a big deal because the DMAs aren't packed together, the towers are bigger and the terrain (generally) doesn't work against you as badly. Also, you guys get more atmospheric effects for longer periods of time than we do.

If you live in a rugged area east of the Mississippi, OTA is hell to get working.

I canceled sat. because it was too expensive about a year ago and haven't looked back since. I made my own 8 bay UHF antenna with stuff from lowe's for around $50 and get 14 channels in perfect digital. Most all in HD. I won't ever go back to pay tv.

Unfortunately, Congress went overboard in auctioning off too much of the RF spectrum. Of the 18 UHF channel frequencies being eliminated, only 4 went to public safety and emergency services - and as 02/17/09 approaches, thousands of ANALOG low power, Class A and translator stations are going to be shoved into a relatively smaller amount of space competing with ATSC full-power stations. I don't know if some of the remaining NTSC LP/Class A/Translators will end up on low-VHF channels.

If Congress and the White House had used good sense, they would have transferred/auctioned off 9 UHF channels rather than 18. This would have made a much less crowded TV bandwidth, particularly in congested urban areas such as the New York metro area and Los Angeles/Southern California. There's going to be a lot of nasty complaints about co-channel interference and adjacent-channel interference. The legislation was written to benefit cable, satellite, and telecom companies - not the general public or videophiles.

I expect that quite a few LP stations will be (effectively) forced into the Low-VHF band. It might be somewhat feasible for analog, but they are going to be in trouble when they F/C to digital. 0.3kW on Low-VHF? It's bad enough for full power stations.

Only taking away 9 channels would have been much better, especially if WSD's are ever loosed on the remaining spectrum (what an awful idea).

I'm not against a reasonable amount of sub-channels, if they were to ever carry any content. For instance, here in CT (on vacation), I would love to see ION (WHPX or WPXQ) carry a CBS sub-channel (wishful thinking I know). WFSB cannot make it over the hills to here (Mystic). Low-VHF 3 could to some extent, but not UHF 33. ...I'm not suggesting they return to 3, but we need a bit more infrastructure. Imagine if cell phone companies relied on one local tower...

I canceled sat. because it was too expensive about a year ago and haven't looked back since. I made my own 8 bay UHF antenna with stuff from lowe's for around $50 and get 14 channels in perfect digital. Most all in HD. I won't ever go back to pay tv.
After a dispute with D*, I canceled them and lived with OTA-only for many months. All the cable/sat shows I watched were available on DVD from Netflix. I got anxious for the next season of one show and subscribed to a low-end E* SD package. That show is in it's last season and when it's done, I'll probably go back to OTA-only.

The problem, though, is that digital OTA requires enough competence to at least run the auto scan...Many DTV converters will tune to the first sub channel of a station by entering its physical channel and no dash. The problem is right now, most stations don't use physical channel IDs, they use virtual channel IDs. So non-techie viewers have no idea why they can't find a station.

IMO, the FCC should force stations to identify themselves by their RF channel numbers, post-analog.

Ever try scanning your cable without the settop box?

Ever try scanning your cable without the settop box?

It is a regular abut annoying problem for those with QAM ready TV's or using PC's with clear QAM PCHD cards. Typically the AVS local thread exchanges the info about what has moved where on which cable RF channel.

For instance here in Gainesville the local channels are all sub-channels of either RF channel 107 or 108, labeled in no predictable way. But they at least don't change often so it is much like moving to a new city and not at first knowing which RF OTA channel number to use for, say, ABC or NBC.

- Tom

Everyone will have to re-scan their boxes and sets for channel changes on and after transition day next year!Not everyone.

Some markets are not making any channel changes, post-analog. The stations in our closest market are all staying on their currently assigned DTV channels. However, they really should be required to change their ID and mapping to the actual RF channels they're using.

Everyone will have to re-scan their boxes and sets for channel changes on and after transition day next year!Many markets are staying with what they have. There are only two changes in 7 months in this market. Both are little watched stations. Both are cutovers.they really should be required to change their ID and mapping to the actual RF channels they're using. You can thank the NAB & the FCC for that one. :mad:

It is a regular abut annoying problem for those with QAM ready TV's or using PC's with clear QAM PCHD cards. Typically the AVS local thread exchanges the info about what has moved where on which cable RF channel.

For instance here in Gainesville the local channels are all sub-channels of either RF channel 107 or 108, labeled in no predictable way. But they at least don't change often so it is much like moving to a new city and not at first knowing which RF OTA channel number to use for, say, ABC or NBC.

- Tom

I just thought it was cool that you could get the hd network channels on cable without needing any settop box.

All of this variance is bad. That's the real underlying problem with OTA adoption as we approach the end of the digital transition.

When the RF channels get re-assigned, there are going to be people who lose their channels and cannot get them back. Not many, but a few. Maybe their son setup their HDTV and the kid now on the other side of the country.

That person yields a negative input into the discourse about OTA.

Add the people who are using analog and don't have the foggiest clue what to do now. Add the people who want electronics to "just work". Add the people who might get how the TV works but they're far enough out in the boonies that they need a serious antenna upgrade.

Around where I live, with transmitters 39 to 60 mi away, a lot of folks are running old school combo antennas with no rotator and no pre-amp. They didn't make the effort to do analog right, and it is a fair bet that many of them will give up altogether if cable or sat is an option.

All these people are going to negative experiences that they are going to tell to others in some version of, "I said screw it and just paid for cable."

...All these people are going to negative experiences that they are going to tell to others in some version of, "I said screw it and just paid for cable."And then there are people who got 3 or 4 snowy, ghosty analog channels, but are now getting 10-15 clear DTV channels with a $20 set top box, and have already dropped pay TV. There are several people in my area who have done this recently. And they are telling others about their experience.

So, it's hard to say how it will all play out - it may be a wash for sat/cablecos. But eventually there may be a lot of people on a budget and who aren't addicted to television, that will gladly drop pay TV if they can get a few local TV channels without ghosts and snow.

No. And then there are people who got 3 or 4 snowy, ghosty analog channels, but are now getting 10-15 clear DTV channels with a $20 set top box They are the exception, not the rule. According to tvfool.org's study, the average number of stations drops from 15 analog to 12 digital.

The reason many people abandoned over-the-air in the 1990s was because they grew tired of fiddling with the antenna. With cable it's "just there". Digital ATSC television makes this problem worse, not better.

I know I'm considering abandoning over-the-air for that precise reason. After 30+ years of relying on analog, now I've switched to digital and it's a major headache trying to get a picture on the screen, especially for long-distance stations from Philly or Baltimore. (Those cities were never clear, but at least I could see something more than the a blank, black screen.) With rabbit ears/UHF loop I could get around 20 channels from four cities. With the same setup it drops to 4 channels, and even with my new rooftop antenna, I'm still only getting 10 channels. Basically HALF as many as previously.

I think cable or dish subscriber companies are going to experience a huge growth in new, frustrated ex-antenna viewers.

With the economy the way it is, I doubt if it'll be a "huge" growth.

Add the people who are using analog and don't have the foggiest clue what to do now. Then it's time to learn. There is no shortage of information out there and I don't mean just the internet. :rolleyes:Add the people who want electronics to "just work".Typical lazy Americans. :mad:Add the people who might get how the TV works but they're far enough out in the boonies that they need a serious antenna upgrade.Move! You can't have your cake and eat it too. There is a price to pay for everything. You want isolation, you got it.They didn't make the effort to do analog right, and it is a fair bet that many of them will give up altogether if cable or sat is an option.No time better than the present to correct past mistakes.

One thing for sure, the sale of cheese will increase next year.

(For all the 'wine' ers. :D)

I am am one of those that had to get rid of cable for financial reasons. bills were getting tight and cable had to go. my family and i have had OTA since april/may. yes i do really miss espn, speed, scifi, and kids want nick & cartoon network but we have realized that not having cable isnt really that bad. my wife and i sat down and came up with a shortlist of channels we would like to have and it came to about 25, yet the cable comp want to give me 100+ and charge me more than I feel like paying.

OTA will get some more viewers, but I'm on the fence as to whether it will be enough to make significant inroads on the market share that cable and sat have. (some of us here hate STB, but the analog shut off is gonna add a few more to the fray)

I know the fcc mandate only specifies analog shut off of OTA broadcast, but what if the cable co's decided to shift the majority of their content to the digital feed and leave just the broadcast nets, guide channel, ppv/on demand preview and home shopping channels on the standart analog cable feed?? Now you need a box (or cable card) for each tv to view anything thats not in the clear on QAM.

If you were stealing cable now you need to subscribe to something, SAT/cable of go out and buy a D/A converter box for OTA.

Lets just wait and see how it all plays out, may be entertaining.

No. They are the exception, not the rule. According to tvfool.org's study, the average number of stations drops from 15 analog to 12 digital.

The reason many people abandoned over-the-air in the 1990s was because they grew tired of fiddling with the antenna. With cable it's "just there". Digital ATSC television makes this problem worse, not better.

I know I'm considering abandoning over-the-air for that precise reason. After 30+ years of relying on analog, now I've switched to digital and it's a major headache trying to get a picture on the screen, especially for long-distance stations from Philly or Baltimore. (Those cities were never clear, but at least I could see something more than the a blank, black screen.) With rabbit ears/UHF loop I could get around 20 channels from four cities. With the same setup it drops to 4 channels, and even with my new rooftop antenna, I'm still only getting 10 channels. Basically HALF as many as previously.

I think cable or dish subscriber companies are going to experience a huge growth in new, frustrated ex-antenna viewers.

See what happens in February. Some channels will go back to 7-13, or at least drop from above 52, and be easier to receive. You could also look into the 'Smart Antenna'.

Next year there may be more power on some digital stations and less interference from analog.

Meanwhile I've had only the very basic cable for about three years now since Comcast (in another city) tried to play the musical tiers game with me.

There is also supposed to be a new NBC digital station here in Gainesville here around the beginning of next year.

The net result of all this is come February I'm going to re-evaluate my OTA options with my new OnAir GT 5th gen tuner (much better than the previous half dozen tuner cards I've used) and if all goes well I may choose to finally drop cable and go back to OTA and save a few bucks.

- Tom

I am am one of those that had to get rid of cable for financial reasons. bills were getting tight and cable had to go. my family and i have had OTA since april/may. yes i do really miss espn, speed, scifi, and kids want nick & cartoon network but we have realized that not having cable isnt really that bad. my wife and i sat down and came up with a shortlist of channels we would like to have and it came to about 25, yet the cable comp want to give me 100+ and charge me more than I feel like paying.
If you can swing having satellite, Dish Network's "Welcome Pack" for $9.95 ($14.95 with locals, which you won't necessarily need if you can get them OTA), that's only available to new subscribers, might not give you exactly what you want, but it might at least keep the wife and kids a little happier and give you something more to choose from. Here's what you'll get:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1844481#post1844481

There's also the "Family Pack", but the Welcome Pack is actually better. For SD, get a 322 dual-tuner, and that will cover two TV's, with no receiver costs for either TV.

I hope OTA makes a comeback.

I've been battling with the difficulties of my location to receive even a modest selection of channels. I'm a full-time college student and running a consulting business on the side to take care of my wife and 2 kids.

Due tot he cost of rent, tuition, gas, groceries, heating oil, etc, we decided to cancel the cable.

Now given the initial cost of the antennas, rotator, rg11 coax (soon to be replaced with 3/4" hardline), 30' antenna mast, pre-amp, and converter box add up to almost a years worth of cable-tv, it is still well worth it for us.

After almost a year, the equipment will have paid for itself and we'll have free tv.

We have a 4 year old SDTV with component inputs and I'm deciding if I want to go with the Samsung DTB-H260F or the CM7000 CECB. Right now we have a Zenith DTT900 and it's amazing. Compared to what we had for cable tv, even the SD sub-channels are better quality than analog channels we got on cable TV. I would almost compare the cable TV we had to what you might get for analog tv reception if you're close to the transmitters, good, but not perfect.

With just the converter box and the SDTV, my Wife was blown away while watching House and Desperate Housewives.

Now we do miss some channels, like discovery and history and my Wife loved the travel channel. I've looked over to NPS for C-band programming, and we might look for a free BUD and subscribe to the 2 or 3 channels we don't get off the antenna. It will still be cheaper than cableTV or pizza-pan dishs. Plus, it will come in digital off of the C-Band dish. As long as we can receive digital and occasional HD shows, we'll be happy.

PBS has plenty of childrens programming for our 5-year old and 1-year old. They get saturday morning cartoons and then we play outside for quite a bit every day.

We get plenty of "quality" programming on the CW with Reno911 and Family Guy. After the kids are asleep though.

I'd like to see more independent networks or locally generated stations. Or just more sub-channels. With sub-channels, there should be a limit of 2 or 3 max weather channels per market/geographical area.

RTN would be good. Maybe Discovery or History channels can partner with ABC or CBS and have a special once or twice a week between 7 pm and 11pm and broadcast it in HD. More partnerships like that may boost ratings for the networks and give the subscribe channels a larger subscriber base or something.

Just my $0.02^10.

See what happens in February. Some channels will go back to 7-13, or at least drop from above 52, and be easier to receive. You could also look into the 'Smart Antenna'. According to tvfool's article, the improvement will only be +1 more digital station than what you are currently getting. So don't expect a miracle.

Overall the available channels will be 7-52 in 99% of the markets, correct? There may be one or two here and there below ch 7. But what about the Canadian digital cutover? I'm close enough that I receive Canadian programming and my wife and kids watch the french stuff without a problem.

What will the Canadian band plan be? Similar to the US? I've looked and can't find a list of channel/station assignments for after 2011 when the cut over.

Any ideas what their programming may be? Will their digital transition provide more OTA programming than the US markets? Or will it be worse than the US markets as far as sub-channels etc.?

~ryan

According to tvfool's article, the improvement will only be +1 more digital station than what you are currently getting. So don't expect a miracle.

Yes, but in Feb the digital channels will be moving to lower frequencies, some in the 7-13 range, which will improve reception. In my area:

ABC - 7 (from 45)
PBS - 13 (from 61)
PIX - 11 (from 33)
CBS - 33 (from 56)

Posting in this thread above made me check my cable bill (higher) and then email Cox about it. It turns out my broadband discount for having limited basic cable has disappeared somewhere along the way and I'm paying an extra $15 / month just for the limited basic subscription of channels I can mostly get from an antenna here anyway.

So I'm going to be putting up my antenna again (new residence) this weekend, canceling Cox cable, and switching back to digital OTA without even waitiing for February now. But chalk me up as at least one helping OTA make a comeback with the digital transition. I've successfully used only an antenna before here in Gainesville and know I can likely make it work if I put my mind to it.

- Tom

Next year there may be more power on some digital stations and less interference from analog.

Don't worry. Analog interference is going to soon be replaced by white spaces devices, because Google has all but bought the next Congress.

Don't worry. Analog interference is going to soon be replaced by white spaces devices, because Google has all but bought the next Congress.

That's great news!

I utilize both OTA and Directv. I will never drop OTA, after all, they are free and offer great content. You'll not see a better PQ than OTA HD, I've been watching it since 2003. I will scan again after 2-17-09, but it will be to add even more channels that powered up.....I hope:)

That's great news! Yeah having no over-the-air television because all the channels have been replaced by Whitespace-equipped Ipods is just fantastic news. Woot. I can hardly contain myself.

I am am one of those that had to get rid of cable for financial reasons. bills were getting tight and cable had to go. my family and i have had OTA since april/may. yes i do really miss espn, speed, scifi, and kids want nick & cartoon network but we have realized that not having cable isnt really that bad. my wife and i sat down and came up with a shortlist of channels we would like to have and it came to about 25, yet the cable comp want to give me 100+ and charge me more than I feel like paying.

OTA will get some more viewers, but I'm on the fence as to whether it will be enough to make significant inroads on the market share that cable and sat have. (some of us here hate STB, but the analog shut off is gonna add a few more to the fray)

I know the fcc mandate only specifies analog shut off of OTA broadcast, but what if the cable co's decided to shift the majority of their content to the digital feed and leave just the broadcast nets, guide channel, ppv/on demand preview and home shopping channels on the standart analog cable feed?? Now you need a box (or cable card) for each tv to view anything thats not in the clear on QAM.

If you were stealing cable now you need to subscribe to something, SAT/cable of go out and buy a D/A converter box for OTA.

Lets just wait and see how it all plays out, may be entertaining.

News bulletin - the cable companies already have made that decision - the question is sooner vs later and the timetable for implementing it. Eventually, the only channels you'll receive without a box are the local broadcast ones.

Yeah having no over-the-air television because all the channels have been replaced by Whitespace-equipped Ipods is just fantastic news. Woot. I can hardly contain myself.

I was talking about Google buying the Senate.

And why would that be great news?

First I think OTA will make a comeback and will do so for a number of different reasons. First let me say I have an HD television and the picture quality OTA is amazing. Let me also say that for my standard televisions using the converter boxes that the picture quality they receive OTA is still nicer than analog cable or DISH network.

So OTA is going to grab some market and mindshare and here is why I believe that will happen.

1. The government is subsidizing the conversion and while this isn't important at first, their efforts in an area often lead to big results in that area justified or not.

2. Cable and Satellite is becoming an all or nothing proposition. Analog Cable has been dying for years as the companies steal decent channels, just stuff like HGTV for example and move it to the digital side and replace it with local city public access channel full of city counsel meetings while still charging the same amount.

Many people have been tolerating this happening or have fought back by giving the big screen in the house the digital package while the others stay on analog. However I really feel like this stuff is close to a breaking/tipping point. Satellite and cable providers are pushing all MPEG4 equipment in order to get their own customers to the HD promised land and most of this equipment is also obsoleting their own and additional equipment of their subscribers.

You get a lot of conversations that involving things like realizing that their TIVO's, older DVR's, etc won't work with the new HD channels. Many times their old satellite dish and boxes won't work as well. Finally where there was some value in the older packages, this has been squeezed out so the choice is all or nothing. The little nickel and diming adds up and so the choice is value but in standard definition or get screwed when going to HD. Toss in a minimum contract often for one or two years to get the new equipment and goodies and that is some serious reckoning overcome in these economic hard times.

Example:
Mr. So and So, you have the Dish package on your main TV and you've called us to let us know that you want some HD channels. Those will be $20 a month more but we can get it down to only $10 a month more if you commit to two years of service, enroll in our autodraft program so we can grab the money directly out of your account and we have to run your credit to make sure you aren't behind on several bills before we will commit to our side of it.

Many of the cable and sat providers are also near a tipping point that occasionally opens up like a gaping wound with regard to fees paid to content providers and also attempted bandwidth grabs for new channels.

Example:
V: Time Warner Cable, this is Viacomm calling you up to negotiate the next contract on our channels you broadcast for us. We know you paid us .50 per subscriber before to offer Nick, MTV, CBS and Comedy Central.

TWC: Ok

V: Then in the last negotiation we charged you a .75 per subscriber but offered you, Nick, NickJR, MTV, VH1, MTV2, CBS, Comedy Central and CMT.

TWC: Yes you did offer some better value, but we had to raise our rates and several of those additional channels we could offer only to our digital subscribers due to bandwidth limitations on the analog side.

V: Well now we want $1.25 per subscriber. We are offering you Nick, NickJR, Nick-Tween, MTV1-3, VH1, CMT, Comedy Central, CBS including HD locals and subchannels.

TWC: V, you don't understand. You are doubling your fees, and also basically tripling the amount of bandwidth we are required to provide you but you aren't providing that return on subscriptions. You aren't bringing us 2-300% more revenue or viewers. You are just cutting the same pool of viewers up into more and more segmented groups. Finally while HD is wonderful in certain instances our viewers really don't need to see Flavor Flav in HD nor will they pay extra for that. Additionally these viewers aren't watching more per day, they are just watching different. Finally you spend 8 hours a night showing informercials.

V: It's all or nothing, bring it on!

TWC: Dammit, raise the subscription fees again!

All this stuff is percentages and who can tolerate certain tipping points. There are those who will get the $10 a month more HD package because they were never late with a bill, don't mind handing over their checking account info, already pay $85 a month for subscriptions so really what is $95-100 across three TV's and gee we do get more channels too. (Again)

However there are also plenty of folks who get truly 35-45 channels via basic cable who went from $30 a month to now almost $40 and they want commitments, equipment fees for box rentals, etc. all while taking away another channel or two. There are folks who are just getting off contract from the last DVR purchase ($99 and another year of service) who are watching the same game be played again. (MPEG 4, another $2-3 a month for the service and you want another two year commitment?!?!)

There are those who had a rough patch and don't want the company to be able to grab that money out of their accounts, won't qualify for the discount, may have even been late on their bills to the providers and can't get the discounts and give backs that help supposedly insolate from all the new fees.

OTA reminds me alot of AM radio in the late 1980's. No one could have predicted talk radio reviving that whole format.

Will a RTN, THIS-TV or .2 network make big gains? Who knows? Will they just be good enough to force the majors to program subchannels with better programming than weather channels to win back viewers? Again who knows. Will the negotiations between Sat/Cable and companies like Viacomm breakdown and we will watch Viacomm put some of that programming on subchannels to scare them, or even to get back those last few cents they can't extract out of them in negotiations? Who knows?

The OTA side of the world isn't perfect, but the real point here is that the paid side isn't perfect either. There are some serious fissures in that model that could break down in some interesting and possibly profitable ways.

Then add HULU, Netflix (including instant access) and a few others choices and it get more interesting.

I could see plenty of folks not being willing to commit to two more years of anything after surviving a close call with regard to housing, a job loss, you name it. They might straddle a line with same tolerating the same package and price while trying out OTA for certain things. These types of things add up over time and I think the result will be good for OTA in the long run.

Yes I too am wondering how Google "owning" the 2009-10 Congress is a good thing?

Blame:

I don't place the blame on the cable/dish companies. I place the blame on the actual Cable Channels, which keep raising their subscriber fees higher-and-higher. In addition they force the purchase of "bundles" so you can't buy JUST the Sci-Fi Channel or JUST the Usa Channel. Instead they force subscription to all 6 channels - Usa, Sci-fi, Bravo, MSNBC, Telemundo, CNBC - for a combined $4.00 total. (The same is true with the ABC/Disney bundle of 5 channels.)

IMHO Congress should step-in and require these channels to be debundled (sold separately), so providers are free to choose just one or two channels and thereby reduce costs/pricing.

The cable a la carte debate has its own thread elsewhere - I think that one has been beaten to death several times.

The adoption of OTA will get a boost in the short term but I'm not sure about long term. The adoption of OTA may depend somewhat indirectly on what cable cos do with clear QAM chs. A lot of folks have cable internet which is not subject to elimination - people will give up a lot of things but not their Internet connection. Invariably that Internet connection comes from a cable provider that also provides some basic lifeline TV subscription with the connection. While the analog chs on that connection will disappear over time, it is very likely clear QAM chs of the OTA equivalents available in that area will remain. So anyone with a TV less than 3-4 years old can basically have OTA TV free with their paid Internet connection (if they are informed about it).

Now if that same customer sees their clear QAM chs go away (or they have DSL) then OTA will be a very good possibility. In many cases where DSL is involved we're not talking about some relatively small incremental increase of say $10 (50 -> 60) but going from paying very little (assuming they had a basic lifeline sub at $10-15/mo) to $60+. In many of those cases, especially if they are in a good reception area, OTA will be very compelling.

In some of the cases, once folks go OTA they won't go back to cable even if their economic conditions improve. Many people were forced into smaller cheaper cars due to the rise in gas prices. Once in those cars they realized that they never really needed that expensive gas guzzling SUV and won't go back even if they could afford one and gas prices go back to $2/gal.

I suspect that most people who rely on OTA TV now are old enough to remember when it was the main way to receive TV, and their families probably used OTA TV when they were children. They're used to having relatively few channels to choose from. When I graduated from high school in 1971, I don't think cable TV even existed in my home town in Ohio. Most kids graduating from high school today probably have little or no experience with OTA TV, except maybe on small portable TVs. They're used to paying for TV (or at least their parents paying for it), and having a lot of channels.

As older people die off, the "OTA culture" will shrink, especially in areas where you can't get good reception with an indoor antenna and have to use a roof antenna. If your family never used a roof antenna, and none of your friends or neighbors do, it takes a lot of faith to spend the money and/or time to put up one from scratch.

I agree with the whole generational idea. I grew up during the transition to cable, and was born in 1967. When I was little, we were able to receive 3 or 4 stations only via analog (CBS in our area was difficult to receive.) We got cable when I was in grade school. We thought of cable as a luxury. People today think of cable or satellite service as a utility.

Think of when you moved to your most recent household... what were the utilities you installed when moving in? Likely it was electric, natural gas (or whatever heat source you rely on), water, phone and then television service.

On that thought, when I speak to others in my area, they think of television as something you turn on - It's just there. They leave it to others to provide content and service the 'pipeline.' So while I have seen a small number of OTA antennas being installed in my area, and there may be a slight rise in households receiving programming OTA, I think the percentage of households relying on OTA reception only will remain small.

Another factor that will keep OTA only households small in number is the media and content providers putting their spin on the digital transition. In today's (11/1/08) edition of the Flint (MI) Journal, there is a lengthy article on Comcast's latest rate hike. Here is what they say about those who might think about turning off cable to avoid higher bills:

'... And there's no returning to the old-fashiond antennas with the digital switch pending.'

That, my friends, is a blatant misrepresentation of facts. I turned off my E* service in April to put a little extra money in the bank. I put up a modest antenna, and receive approx 20 digital channels with a higher number of subchannels. If I relied on an indoor antenna, that list would be about half as long. Seems like 'old-fashioned' antennas work quite nicely for digital, thank you very much. Granted, depending on where you live, your mileage may vary.

I suspect that most people who rely on OTA TV now are old enough to remember when it was the main way to receive TV, and their families probably used OTA TV when they were children.

How true!
Actually, it was the only way to get TV in most areas. LOL... I remember when TV's only had VHF tuners. To get UHF channels, we had to buy a "converter" to add the additional channels (and a bowtie antenna).

When we first subscribed to cable (~ 1980), it was a luxury because I got a raise and could afford the $8.00 subscription fee for ~30 channels. ;)

The cable a la carte debate has its own thread elsewhere - I think that one has been beaten to death several times.

The adoption of OTA will get a boost in the short term but I'm not sure about long term. The adoption of OTA may depend somewhat indirectly on what cable cos do with clear QAM chs. A lot of folks have cable internet which is not subject to elimination - people will give up a lot of things but not their Internet connection. Invariably that Internet connection comes from a cable provider that also provides some basic lifeline TV subscription with the connection. While the analog chs on that connection will disappear over time, it is very likely clear QAM chs of the OTA equivalents available in that area will remain. So anyone with a TV less than 3-4 years old can basically have OTA TV free with their paid Internet connection (if they are informed about it).

Now if that same customer sees their clear QAM chs go away (or they have DSL) then OTA will be a very good possibility. In many cases where DSL is involved we're not talking about some relatively small incremental increase of say $10 (50 -> 60) but going from paying very little (assuming they had a basic lifeline sub at $10-15/mo) to $60+. In many of those cases, especially if they are in a good reception area, OTA will be very compelling.

In some of the cases, once folks go OTA they won't go back to cable even if their economic conditions improve. Many people were forced into smaller cheaper cars due to the rise in gas prices. Once in those cars they realized that they never really needed that expensive gas guzzling SUV and won't go back even if they could afford one and gas prices go back to $2/gal.

Like I posted above I recently noticed there is now zero discount on Cox broadband for receiving basic cable (including clear QAM). That discount went away on my July bill with no obvious notice and the limited basic subscription would now cost me an extra $15 / month for what I can get OTA plus some channels I never watch. So yesterday I canceled Cox cable and just kept the broadband.

I don't know if the new lack of cable broadband discount is some wider Cox policy that may apply to others or just something local. But it made OTA relatively more attractive to me, enough to hook up an antenna again.

- Tom

Think of when you moved to your most recent household... what were the utilities you installed when moving in? Likely it was electric, natural gas (or whatever heat source you rely on), water, phone and then television service.


I have moved quite a few times and the last time I thought of cable TV as a utility. I just wish it hadn't taken me over 5 years to drop it. Broadband internet is included in the HOA dues here, but not cable TV. However, the oldest homes in this development are ~7 years old now. Still, there are at least 3 outdoor (UHF only) antennas in the development. I wonder how many attic antennas exist in addition to mine.

Looking back, I was born in the early 70's and we only had rabbit ears until I was 11. We then moved into an area that was in the shadow of some hills, so cable was our only option there. We had cable until 1993, when we moved to an area that had no cable service. We had analog satellite and OTA (rooftop) there until 1999. I didn't return to OTA, even after I got my own place, until 2007 and didn't drop cable until early this year.

I was convinced that being so far from the towers (51 miles) and being obscured by hills that I didn't have a chance. I also didn't know about DTV until 2006, when my brother gave me a demo, but the reception was poor in the computer room (it should have been obvious as to why...)

Younger generations, such as my employees, may have parents that use OTA, but they don't think about it for themselves. "Required" bills?

Cell phone
Electric
Internet
Water
Gas
Cable TV

Satellite TV is probably viewed as a luxury.

Ironically, my parents keep pushing me to get cable or satellite service, but since I won't need TBS for another 11+ months and I haven't missed ESPN that much, I doubt I will bother.

I'm loving OTA for football and NASCAR. However you have to have cable or sat for ESPN and other favorite channels. Cable is using HD as another reason to jack the rates and I would love to blow them off, but sat is still another monthly payment. I'm not sure I could live with just OTA but I might have to find out unless the economy improves.

I'm loving OTA for football and NASCAR. However you have to have cable or sat for ESPN and other favorite channels. Cable is using HD as another reason to jack the rates and I would love to blow them off, but sat is still another monthly payment. I'm not sure I could live with just OTA but I might have to find out unless the economy improves.


I am presently doing OTA + Netflix + TiVo. I can say there were about five day's worth of DTs before overcoming the need for cable. We experienced two price hikes courtesy of Comcast during the last 12 months and that was enough considering all the excessive box and outlet fees.

For me OTA/satellite isn't an "either-or" situation. I pay for a satellite subscription, but not the extra charge to get the OTA channels or the extra HD subscription fee. I get my OTA channels in HD via a good old CM 4228 antenna and my satellite channels in SD (but still S-video quality).

The drawback is a bit more complexity in operating the TV: I have to select the right input, then tune in the channel with either the Sammy or the satellite receiver. That requires a 3-device (4 when you include a DVD player) remote control, but it's no big deal for me.

I like HD for sports, but c'mon: do I really need HD to watch MSNBC?

More-and-more I find myself ignoring over-the-air, and using (pardon my french) torents to obtain my favorite television shows. NBC.com, hulu.com, and other sites also provide legal methods.

Don't be surprised if today's teens decide to buy neither cable nor antenna television for their first apartments, but instead go direct to internet watching.

For me OTA/satellite isn't an "either-or" situation. I pay for a satellite subscription, but not the extra charge to get the OTA channels or the extra HD subscription fee. I get my OTA channels in HD via a good old CM 4228 antenna and my satellite channels in SD (but still S-video quality).

The drawback is a bit more complexity in operating the TV: I have to select the right input, then tune in the channel with either the Sammy or the satellite receiver. That requires a 3-device (4 when you include a DVD player) remote control, but it's no big deal for me.

I like HD for sports, but c'mon: do I really need HD to watch MSNBC?

The answer is obviously yes!

CNN approximately doubled their ratings when they switched to their beautiful HD rich shows. Obviously MSNBC needs HD to make a lot more money and viewers need/want HD for their enjoyment.

After all men have a pleasure center in their brain that lights up when they see beautiful images. That pleasure center is essentially the same pleasure center that lights up when a man sees a beautiful woman.

So HD is just sort of another form of sexual emotions for men. Good enough reason for me to want MSNBC in HD :-)

So HD is just sort of another form of sexual emotions for men. Good enough reason for me to want MSNBC in HD :-)
So you've noticed that most of the info-babes on TV aren't what would be described as ugly.

On a more serious note I think the analog shutdown will lead to the the loss of at least 2 Million over the air households. Most people probably won't try as hard when they have reception problems as those who read this forum. Also white space devices that will interfere with someone's reception somewhere received their initial approval from the FCC today.

I'm canceling cable. I find that I only watch OTA channels over cable anyway, so what's the point having cable when I can put up an antenna and get the channels for free without paying $63 a month? The few shows that I used to watch on cable, I can get over the Internet on sites like Hulu and/or (okay, why is BT censored??).

I also told my mother about this. I was surprised to find that she only watches local channels through cable as well! When I told her that you can receive these channels in full HD for free with an antenna, she actually suspected me of doing something illegal to get them! She immediately asked me to set it up for her and I did. She's happier than before as she didn't know about QAM channels on cable and the locals now look beautiful and HD on her reasonably new TV.

My mother is about as non-technical a person as you can get, and she has switched to OTA. She just needed to learn about it. I wonder how many people would switch if they knew?

We should make it a point to mention OTA to folks from time to time. "Do you watch mostly local channels? You do know you can still get them for free right?" will open a lot of eyes in this economy.

My mother is about as non-technical a person as you can get, and she has switched to OTA. She just needed to learn about it. I wonder how many people would switch if they knew?

We should make it a point to mention OTA to folks from time to time. "Do you watch mostly local channels? You do know you can still get them for free right?" will open a lot of eyes in this economy.
+1, been saying that for some time - the only unknown at this point is the number of folks that will make the switch.

I'm canceling cable. I find that I only watch OTA channels over cable anyway, so what's the point having cable when I can put up an antenna and get the channels for free without paying $63 a month?

If all you want is the local channels, you don't have to pay your cable company $63 a month. A bare-bones "basic" or "lifeline basic" subscription (terminology varies) which contains about 20 channels, mostly the locals (both analog and HD "clear QAM") should cost only $10 to $15.

Of course, this still costs more per month than OTA, but it's a pretty good deal for people in OTA-reception-challenged locations.

You are underestimating the number of people with cable internet. Comcast charges a $15 (I think $17 now) how dare you not have TV fee (most MSOs do something similiar) which makes internet+limited basic about the same as internet only. I don't think saving $3 is worth dealing with antennas for most. It if is your probably already on DSL.

But then at even $3 a month, there are a lot people on cable, only watching locals, live very close to stations, that could buy a Silver Sensor and get their channels, about a one year pay back. Or a modest outdoor or atttic install under $100 in a good signal area, where little fuss is needed just to put one up. $100 on OTA is a 3 year pay back.

Throw in that in some, not all, towns DSL is a lot cheaper even if slower. I for one would stay on my $30 DSL even if cable came here with 20mb for $50 or more. I can't afford that for internet a month.

Much depends on your situation. My point if any is a lot of people don't know how easy it would be for them to use OTA. Not everyone has a challenge putting up an antenna like, as those are the ones we mostly hear about on here.

The ones that bought a converter, hooked it to their old rabbit ears and everything was fine don't show up here.

You are underestimating the number of people with cable internet. Comcast charges a $15 (I think $17 now) how dare you not have TV fee (most MSOs do something similiar) which makes internet+limited basic about the same as internet only. I don't think saving $3 is worth dealing with antennas for most. It if is your probably already on DSL.

Ahh. I have DSL, so there you go. My cable bill is going to drop from $63 to $0.

Cable, satellite, and even services like U-Verse overcompress their HD, affecting picture quality.

This should give OTA an advantage. However, as many stations pile on bandwidth sucking subchannels, there is a race to mediocrity, and it is unclear who will win (certainly not the consumer).

in my area they just added a channel called "THIS" which broadcasts movies all day long pretty much. I love it.

See ya later comcast

I think OTA will definitely comeback. This economy is helping it out.

We decided to have my wife stay home almost 2 years ago with our 4th child, since daycare was so expensive (plus someone else is raising them during the day). We got rid of the cell phones, dropped our long distance (using calling cards), switched to DSL (cheaper than dialup), and dropped the $50+ basic cable. This really helped out when my hours were cut back 12.5% in early January.

The savings in cable alone ($600/yr) bought the converter box/RG6/rotor/antenna and a new 1080i LCD TV with money to spare. I don't think people realize how good an OTA digital signal really looks. I think the average person thinks that OTA is a step down from cable or satellite. Fine, I don't get FoodTV and the kids have to do without the Disney Channel, but that's something you get used to over time. Imagine the kids actually reading a book vs. staring at some program they've seen twenty times....

in most markets PBS carries an SD kids channel with childrens programming. Over here they do anyway. I think the FCC says some channels are required to show educational kids shows.

With digital TV soon to be the only broadcast medium, do think OTA will regain some market share at the expense of cable and satellite? I used to get about 7 channels on OTA and now I'm up to 23. It would be nice to see even more channels like ESPN or CNN or something similar to broadcast free over the air. What do you think? I figure movies are available on itunes and netflix online so there's not nearly as much reason to have cable. I know I don't or want to watch 100 channels.

Why would it change? The OTA digital signal has already been out there if people wanted to make a move.

I think online media streaming/content like Netflix and Hulu will have more impact.

I have moved quite a few times and the last time I thought of cable TV as a utility. I just wish it hadn't taken me over 5 years to drop it. Broadband internet is included in the HOA dues here, but not cable TV. However, the oldest homes in this development are ~7 years old now. Still, there are at least 3 outdoor (UHF only) antennas in the development. I wonder how many attic antennas exist in addition to mine.

Looking back, I was born in the early 70's and we only had rabbit ears until I was 11. We then moved into an area that was in the shadow of some hills, so cable was our only option there. We had cable until 1993, when we moved to an area that had no cable service. We had analog satellite and OTA (rooftop) there until 1999. I didn't return to OTA, even after I got my own place, until 2007 and didn't drop cable until early this year.

I was convinced that being so far from the towers (51 miles) and being obscured by hills that I didn't have a chance. I also didn't know about DTV until 2006, when my brother gave me a demo, but the reception was poor in the computer room (it should have been obvious as to why...)

Younger generations, such as my employees, may have parents that use OTA, but they don't think about it for themselves. "Required" bills?

Cell phone
Electric
Internet
Water
Gas
Cable TV

Satellite TV is probably viewed as a luxury.

Ironically, my parents keep pushing me to get cable or satellite service, but since I won't need TBS for another 11+ months and I haven't missed ESPN that much, I doubt I will bother.
what i consider to be a necessity is electric, water, gas only. nothing else.

20 years ago when my wife and I were married, we dropped cable to save up to buy a house. We have never gone back and we don't miss it. I did have a roof top antenna installed and we subscribe to Netflix and have Uverse for phone and internet. Between streams from the networks/Netflix and OTA HD we are good to go. Thanks to high speed internet, I'll probably never subscribe to a tv service now. Come to think of it, thanks to streaming, we don't watch that much OTA either!

We dropped sat last year. I put together a BTV computer and record OTA HD. We thought that we would miss the extra channels but we really haven't. Having 2TB worth of shows recorded gives us something to watch when there is nothing on the local channels.

I doubt we'll go back to paid TV anytime soon.

OTA might make a comeback within a certain distance from the towers, and in areas where the terrain isn't a problem.

But, where I live (western PA) OTA digital is something that only the real crackheads attempt. Or the lucky bastards who live on hills that stand at 1600' or higher.

There are some parts of the country that are wholly unsuited to DTV.

And some areas are awesome. Looking at southern California, where folks report using rabbit ears at 50 miles!

I think OTA is simply too inconsistent to mount a large-scale comeback.

And some areas are awesome. Looking at southern California, where folks report using rabbit ears at 50 miles!


Florida is like that. Flat as a pancake land; just put an antenna more than 10 feet up or so and you get beautiful reception even at large distances.

I must say I'm lucky in that sense; other areas will have more problems.

And even I get the occasional breakup; just not enough to be truly annoying.

I just got my 2009 cableco rate hikes in the mail today. An extra $6/mo minimum hike, from what I was able to dechiper. I've got an HDTV tuner and SageTV software in my computer already, but thats not currently hooked up to my TV (just my monitor). Shoot, I guess if I got real desperate I could lug this beast into the living room and I'd be set.

As soon as I build a brand new PVR for the TV with 2 HD dual tuners (4 channels at once! That basically covers NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox), I'm dumping Brighthouse cable and internet. Based on my estimated system build costs, it's about a 4 month payback. Sickening how easy that is.

Here I come, OTA! I'll miss you, ESPN, but there are always sports bars, and I'll have $120 more a month to spend on beer to drink while watching the games.

We just dumped u-verse and picked up a HD TiVo with OTA only.
With streaming netflix on the TiVo and being able to watch Hulu on the PS3, we are saving about $50 a month.
The HD from OTA is better than u-verse anyway.

I finally got fed up with the high prices of cable and cancelled my suscription two months ago. I don't miss it one bit. I'm also tired of all the commercials that cable channels are showing these days. I'm sick and tired of paying a sky high bill just to watch more commercials than ever. Also some of favorite stations have gone straight in the trash can over the last five years like TVLand, TBS, and the Disney channel. I have a whole bookcase full of DVDs that I can watch and If I want more I can buy more DVDs with the money I'm saving on cable. I have DSL with AT&T and I'm paying $22.95 a month for their 1.5 MPBS connection with their phone plan that I'm on. I also watch shows at Hulu.com, Fancast.com and Youtube. I get all my locals in HD OTA with my ATSC tuner and Terk TV5 antenna.