Not the people on these forums but It seems to me that there are a lot of people who could get good free quailty TV reception from a outdoor OTA antenna and don't.. I get 16 good OTA channals here. If I count all the duplcates, Non-english, religious, digital and analog there are about 42. Yet very few people I know have a functioning outdoor antenna. They may have cable, which makes sense if local channals are not extra, or they pay extra for local reception on there dish, or they mess around with rabbit ears and move them every time they change channals. Its not an esthetic thing cus many homes have a 30 year old busted nonfunctioning antenna on the roof. I bet some day we loose free broadcast television cus nobody wants to use it.
I'm not saying anything is wrong about cable and dish for all the extra programming available there. I have Dish but my local channals are OTA free and some have better picture quality.
These are some of the things you think about when your retired and don't have many real problems in your life.
John

Apparently the antenna installation trade is a lost art. Very few people have the time, inclination or know-how to do it themselves.

Too bad.

A lot of people took down their rooftop antennas throughout the 90s when cable became The Thing and nobody could see going back to OTA (and in the case of my parent's house, the antenna was shaking in the wind and was only a matter of time before it did damage)

Nowadays, there's still the negative feeling about OTA from experience with static and ghosting, and it's just going to take time until people catch on.

For many that can (i'm not talking apartment/condo dwellers), the cableco route is perceived as the "path of least resistance". No rotors to turn, no ghosts, no "outside dishes", etc.

But in rural areas (in my neighborhood) there is no cable service at all (nor DSL internet) so until recently (less than 5 years ago) OTA was the only route for local network channels in my DMA. Many of the older/fixed income here still use the large VHF/UHF combo antennas and analog TV's. Others use either D* or E* exclusively or a combo of DBS and OTA (myself).

In my case, I found the E* locals to be lacking in audio/video quality compared to SD programing over my local digital OTA stations. The local channels were dropped as I had no use for them. I get PBS, ABC, CBS, FOX, CW, 2 NBC's, and if the weather is right a relgious independent and the 480i MNTV station w/RTN and Univision on the subs. It also helps to have pasture land mainly to the direction of the transmitting stations (i'm 70 mi to some of the towers) :p

Another problem is, it's hard to integrate the local OTA channels with DBS or Cable TV. So, people who opt for the Cable and Sat "Pay TV" channels, don't want to push an extra button, deal with a second remote control, or miss-out on the EPG for locals. So, they go "path of least resistance" and just buy it all from one provider.

Cable TV and Satellite have often used the line, "We can't sell our service without having local channels/networks". Yet, they could have designed their STBs to better handle OTA reception.....if they wanted to.

You also have whole generations 20 somethings and younger that grew up with
cable and are not even aware of free TV via an antenna much less digital and high
definition that are free.

Call it the dumming down of America by the cable companies with their marketing
and advertisements jammed down your throats about every other commercial (as I write this TWC just had another one in the last 10 minutes).

The broadcasters themselves do not even market themselves as free, but on the contrary they promote cable and what channels they can be found on (retransmission I suppose).

Until they (broadcasters) decide to market themselves as free this will continue to be the norm.

One thing for certain as prices continue to go up they ALL will price themselves out of the market and "free" may once again make a comeback. :)

Well - I enjoy having my dish - and getting my locals on it as well - but DBS IS subject to weather disruption (ever try to watch DBS while a hurricane is in the area ? - it ain't pretty, I'll tell you). That's been my major motivation for getting a working OTA setup and keeping it working - so I CAN still get local news and information related programming. I'm about where I am "future proofed" (I do own an ATSC set top box as well as a 14 inch SDTV with an ATSC tuner) - at least as far as this is concerned. It had at least one side benfit - as soon as I bought the first ATSC tuner - I was ready to recieve OTA HDTV (now when I get a display that is capable - sigh - gotta talk the wife into that still). I've even laid out my plans between now and Feb 17, 2009 -

1. Acquire ATSC HDTV tuner - check (Samsung DTB-H260F)
2. Acquire bedroom sized (14 inch) TV with ATSC tuner - check (Insignia's that was available at Best Buy for $130)
3. "Coupon box" DTV convertor for kitchen TV (relatively new 19 inch Walmart brand NTSC set) - waiting for them to become available / coupon. A Second one may be desirable for current 27 inch main TV.
4. HDTV display - ideally, without a tuner (or one that is even better than the Samsung). Waiting on Wife approval. Probably will be a 32 inch LCD display / TV.

So - I am already executing a well-thought through plan, subject to financial constraints as well.

Waiting on Wife approval.

discussion centers around the evolutionary process leading to HDTV.

cable started in areas starving to get local programing because of the issues related to geography. the hills in the area blocked signal. And setting up a antenna system was a pain in the ass. The cable and later the satellite companies did all the setup and install for you.

cable started with 12 dinky local channels and then hbo.

cable was built block by block. we could not wait till cable was on our streets because we were tired of screwing around with antennas, rabit ears, flat wire, uhf converters, etc. the only entertainment at the time was radio, tv, newspapers and the movies.

no vcrs, no blockbuster, no dvds, no playstation, no computers, no internet, no ipods...and no hdtv.

in the early 80's hbo figured out a way to get on satellite. before that it was microvave links. then came cnn, headline news, espn, mtv, and so on. we went from 12 dinky channels to 18 to 36 dinky channels. on the clunk clunk cable boxes. the big excitement was how to get hbo for free.

at the same time this new programing began to evolve on satellite. satelite tv was FREE back then!!! till hbo decided to scramble.

back then the satellite families were enjoying free programing. once hbo scrambled all the others followed. and the big dish market DIED. cable was loving it!

cable contined to build around the country...that was their only way to grow to gain market share. then directv and dish came on the scene. the competition for them was cable with their "free as part of the package" locals.

in order to get more customers the locals were added to satellite for a small fee. now we cant wait till they offer the hd locals.

now you have verizon fios and others with their struggles to get their tv service running around the country...those cable franchise agreements from the old days are killing them.

to make a long story short....there is an evolution process happening. The only thing that changed during this entire process were all the friggin options.

Years ago there were no vcrs, no blockbuster, no dvds, no playstation, no cable, no satellite, no computers, no internet, no ipods...and no hdtv. If you wanted to watch tv your only choice was to install some type of antenna system. and you did not have to ask your wife for permission. there were not any other options...if you wanted to watch tv.

During all this crap, ota signal is still FREE. and I am glad it still is! And I have a big ass antenna system that the family enjoys programing off of, and I can could care less what people think.

Too many options!

Oh - the wife approves of the plan - she knows a bit more than she would prefer to but she was the one that suggested getting the 14" bedroom TV NOW, when I explained the requirements (it had to have both ATSC and NTSC tuners) - her biggest complaint is the cost of the HDTV display, and not really seeing any benefit in it yet... ( and I have to rely on her for setting the colors on a calibration DVD...)

I've thought about getting a CM4228 to replace the CM3021, but I want to check out some other factors first (living in a forest is a defenite minus for UHF reception - I bet there is LOTS of multipath out there - and not any real way to get my antenna above the trees).

I just saw a marketing survey ("public opinion poll") for our DMA.

Less than half the people surveyed knew anything about DTV or HDTV, and the vast majority had no plans to buy it :confused: .

We gotta lotta work ta do!

I just saw a marketing survey ("public opinion poll") for our DMA.

Less than half the people surveyed knew anything about DTV or HDTV, and the vast majority had no plans to buy it :confused: .

We gotta lotta work ta do!

Maybe that explains that more than half of HDTV set buyers have no source of HDTV content. And even stranger that percentage is rising.

As long as broadcasters are looking for subscription fees from cable they have no incentive to push OTA since each viewer who gets HD content OTA represents a lost subscription source of revenue.

Conflict of interest.

Maybe broadcasters, in this new digital age, should be competing with cable and satellite instead of in bed with them.

OTA DTV is offering severe competition to satellite and cable in other countries. And surprisingly in those countries people are very aware of the possibilities of OTA. They actually go to stores and can choose between a large assortment of receivers and get information from interested and knowledgeable salespeople. And they freely buy these receivers. They don't have them sneakily put into their TV sets with little or no information via mandate.

I wonder if this has anything to do with that conflict of interest.

Australia for example has only 19 million people. When DTV was proposed most thought that NO one would offer an digital STB let alone and integrated HDTV set for sale. Unlike the vast and rich US market Australia picked an unusual audio/video modulation and had a channel size of 7 MHz which was unique in the world.

It was common sense to assume, as they did, that manufacturers would find such a market of 5 million homes too small to consider. But they didn't. You can find 175 different OTA DTV receivers for sale in Australia, lots of information, lots of advertising and rapidly increasing sales.

Even LG sells HDTV STBs in Australia, something they don't do in the US.

Now I ask, why is it that the US which has the biggest and richest market, the US which has the incredible draw of having the most HDTV content, in fact most countries that have gone digital have NO HDTV content, and the widest coverage by far of DTV broadcasting and has been at this OTA DTV thing for far longer than most countries, why is the US so barren of information on HDTV, why do retail stores have few if any OTA receivers and why do their sales forces know virtually nothing about OTA?

Why is this so while OTA DTV receivers are the fastest growing fastest selling electronic device EVER in countries like the UK and France?

Of course with the mandate in the US we don't have to worry about sales. They take care of themselves. But if no one is going to use OTA DTV in the US why bother.

And with no or little education about the OTA DTV transition, and even that mostly waiting on funding from government, who are we kidding? It seems to be in no ones interest in the US, no powerful connected entity that is, to really push OTA DTV. The government is only doing it half heartedly because they want to sell spectrum and because politically it will become a hot potato when it implodes on them in 2009.

They obviously have NO faith in OTA. Putting the transition, strategically just after basketball and elections.

The public has not been considered at all in this process. First it was short term profit interest of ignorant Consumer Electronic manufacturers and somnolent broadcasters. Now it is the government in a panic.

But never has anyone sat down and taken a long term thoughtful look at how best to use OUR spectrum in a rapidly changing technical world for the viewers.

This thread is practically a repeat of this current thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=827969

In so far as a more direct answer, I suspect that many people are just plain ignorant about the concept of using an antenna.

Once in a fancyfull moment I thought of giving up my day job and starting a TV antenna installation company. I have spent a lot of time and effort on this so I am good at it. I always wondered what an ad campaign of "Digital TV including HDTV with no monthly fees" would do. I even researched a lineup of antennas that I felt would cover almost all situations.

Rick R

I would like to find someone to install a OTA antenna on my roof. Easier said than done. Does anyone know any installers in the Bay Area - East Bay (CA)? One company I called wanted mucho $$$ but I said I wanted to setup an appt. They never called back. I do get OTA with rabbit ears but am tired of constantly adjusting it.

You also have whole generations 20 somethings and younger that grew up with
cable and are not even aware of free TV via an antenna much less digital and high
definition that are free.

Call it the dumming down of America by the cable companies with their marketing
and advertisements jammed down your throats about every other commercial (as I write this TWC just had another one in the last 10 minutes).

The broadcasters themselves do not even market themselves as free, but on the contrary they promote cable and what channels they can be found on (retransmission I suppose).

Until they (broadcasters) decide to market themselves as free this will continue to be the norm.

One thing for certain as prices continue to go up they ALL will price themselves out of the market and "free" may once again make a comeback. :)

Those generations that grew up, are growing up, with little knowledge of OTA are actually very knowlegeable about OTA. They have cell phones which are OTA. Those cell phones and other mobile devices like laptops will be able to easily receive the new OTA broadcasting mobile that companies like Quallcomm and Hiwire will start offering soon and which will blossom once the spectrum is freed up in 2009.

In fact even broadcasters will get into the act using A-VSB and MPG so that they can compete with what will be a very successful OTA offerings. If not in dollars via subscription very much so in free OTA DTV.

The only part of the OTA spectrum that will still be used for HD will be what is left over after the spectrum hogs of A-VSB and MPG take their share.

Those generations of under 20 will think it is quaint that you need to worry about such a thing as a roof top antenna for HD when their cell phones and laptops work great with simple antennas that they may not even see.

First A-VSB or MPG will take up even more spectrum forcing the HD stream into a tighter corner, prefiltered to an ever lower quality rate so that it makes it though the smaller channel offered it, then it will be noticed that there are fewer an fewer people using OTA for HD while more are using it for A-VSB and MPG.

And it will be argued that in the smaller bandwidth HD needs a better codec than MPEG2. A codec like that being used by A-VSB and MPG or Qualcomm's Mediaflo or Hiwire's DVB-T/H, MPEG4.

But that would make all current and past 8-VSB receivers obsolete, couldn't have that, forgetting that A-VSB and MPG also make all current and past receivers obsolete, unless you are capable of twisting logic and common sense into a pretzel.

For example, just off the top, throwing away 5 or six Mbps of data out of 19.34 Mbps so that you can have a 1 Mbps MPEG4 robust mobile channel (that makes 6 Mbps now not available for MPEG2 HD) is NOT making these old receivers obsolete? In a DTV transition that was predicated on delivering REAL HDTV.

You know that pristine stuff of 1920 by 1080i? Who are we kidding? Just ourselves?

And then because things are getting hot and profitable or losses loom, things might start changing for the better. Maybe the US will actually then be able to leapfrog other countries and be a leader in TV again. First of all we have to break this mindset of "stay the course" BS though.

This thread is practically a repeat of this current thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=827969

In so far as a more direct answer, I suspect that many people are just plain ignorant about the concept of using an antenna.


Yes, I noticed that one after I posted.

Does anyone know any installers in the Bay Area - East Bay (CA)?

Try the local reception thread for your area:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=369015&goto=lastpost

Once in a fancyfull moment I thought of giving up my day job and starting a TV antenna installation company.

That'll change when you fall off the ladder... :eek:

That'll change when you fall off the ladder... :eek:

Or run the numbers required to make a profit!

Though if I was independently wealthy and about 30 years older (old enough to be an "ornery cuss") I'd love to do it. HOAs which bitched would find that future installations in their community "required" a Wade VU-937SR or equivalent for acceptable channel 6 performance. :-) :-) :-)

Everyone wants Discovery, History, Weather ... etc channels and HBO to watch the Sopranos. You can't get any of these over an antenna. So you get cable and the locals are included.

--- CHAS

Everyone wants Discovery, History, Weather ... etc channels and HBO to watch the Sopranos. You can't get any of these over an antenna. So you get cable and the locals are included.

--- CHAS



Everyone? I do not believe you will find much data to support that.

There are assumptions made every day on all kinds of things. For every yes that
you can find you will also find plenty of no's which is why there is competition and
choice for those people who do not agree with your position. ;)

There are pockets of interest around the country for off air reception.

Mostly in the rural areas poorly serviced by cable and satellite. My area has over 90% coverage for cable and satellite. there is very little interest in antennas. There is not enough business available here to make a living at it unless you want to spend most of your time in the boonies.

Gas is expensive today and those panel trucks are not the most fuel efficient vehicles. you need to drive in order to get there and that cuts down on your profits. And once you get there they do not want to spend alot of money.

The antenna and satellite installer of old is a dying breed. Just because you may have a joy or interest in off air does not mean your neighbor or many others out there do.

I think people just can't get all the shows they want OTA. That may not be as much an issue when people realize they can rent DVD's from places like Netflix of all those shows.

I expect the internet will get interesting as a source of TV programming, but I bet all those Telcos now wish they had built that high speed network they promised back in the early 1990's. It would've come in handy now.

Everyone wants Discovery, History, Weather ... etc channels and HBO to watch the Sopranos. You can't get any of these over an antenna. So you get cable and the locals are included.
"the locals are included"? Many cable systems don't have all the local stations in HD. Comcast in Loudoun county, VA, some 8 months after they took after the Adelphia franchise, still does not offer the local CW (WDCW-DT 50) and the My Network (WDCA-DT 20) stations in HD. Of course My Network has terrible ratings, but they are showing "Ujena Bikini Jam" with lots of models wearing bikinis in HD as I write this (channel surfing up from House). :cool: I was fortunate in being to switch to Verizon FiosTV last fall, which does offer those 2 channels and Maryland Public TV in HD, but most people in Loudoun don't have the Verizon option yet. Since I don't think D* or E* offer them in HD either, if they want those stations in HD, they need to put up an antenna. I put an antenna up in the attic a while back to get the DC and Baltimore stations OTA. Since Verizon will never offer the Baltimore stations here, the antenna will always be useful for those stations.

That'll change when you fall off the ladder... :eek:
Like I said it is only in fanciful moments. When I was a teenager I spent much time stringing up 80 meter dipoles, 20 meter beam antennas, and multiband verticals. Good memories but probably impractical as a business. Think I will stick to radar systems software engineering.

Rick R

A number of people I've talked to believe that OTA is always inferior to cable reception. period. OTA will only give you a fuzzy, snowy picture with ghosts and bad color. They honestly think that cable is what finally made television practical -- that's why it's everywhere.

A few have been surprised that it's possible to even receive television OTA these days.

OTA seems to be gaining popularity in my area...I'm seeing antennas on newly constructed homes...seems that about every third new home has one....

A few have been surprised that it's possible to even receive television OTA these days. When I've explained that you can get free "HD" with an antenna, the typical reaction is "nuh-uh". When I convince them and that the regular antenna that most people have (had) on their roof, they remember "oh, we took that antenna down....".

Face it, if cable is in your area, you can get it with a phone call. Typically a few days later, quite often "free" installation, and you're done. Plus, you get 50-80 channels vs a dozen (for my area, via OTA). It doesn't require hundreds of dollars for the antenna plus installation (my roof is 25+ high with a very steep pitch so I ain't installing it myself). What if someone lives in a valley or an apartment and an antenna won't work ?? Please no FCC OTARD rants here either....

Just to be clear, I have an antenna and receive OTA programming.

What about a Monster Cable-branded antenna? I would think that would REALLY bring in the OTA channels!!

It is amazing how little people know about HDTV. An old pair of "rabbit ears" works just as well as "HD-Ready" antennas.

It doesn't require hundreds of dollars for the antenna plus installation (my roof is 25+ high with a very steep pitch so I ain't installing it myself).


Instead, it requires $1,000's in subscription fees over the typical lifespan of outdoor antenna(conservative estimate, say 15 years) ...

Let's be real conservative and say you can get "50-80 channels" from cable for $20 a month(yeah Right!), let's even say you're actually interested in watching the programming on most of those channels (yeah right!)... That's $3600 over 15 years right there ....



What if someone lives in a valley or an apartment and an antenna won't work ??

I live in a valley and antenna works quite well(15 digital stations currently, 14 which do HD - that adds up to 40 "channels" with the SD multicasting many of them are doing+23 analogs), it even provides several stations of interest which would not be available to me via cable(if, that is, cable served my rural location, which it doesn't) ....

More people *pay* each month for cable or satellite than those who use an antenna and get service FOR FREE. Easy to see that the monthly cost doesn't stop them....

More people *pay* each month for cable or satellite than those who use an antenna and get service FOR FREE. Easy to see that the monthly cost doesn't stop them....

I didn't say anything about what "more people do" ... to state the obvious, I was addressing your comment on antenna cost. Specifically, antenna cost vs. costs for cable service over a reasonable expected lifetime of an outdoor antenna, nothing more, nothing less ....

Also, keep in mind none of us(including OTA only viewers) get TV completely for "free". We all pay for it(and the station's bills in the case of broadcasters) when we purchase products advertised on TV, whether or not we watch the commercials or have access to the programming services where they are presented. Another example, some of the money for some of the NCE(such as PBS member stations)broadcasters comes from government grants, some NCE stations are even state owned operations.

I think It's great that many people want to pay more than they have to, for whatever reasons, so they can have cable or satellite deliever some(probably not all in most cases) of the broadcast signals available to them(and more stuff not available OTA as well). And I also think it's great most of us also have the OTA option available as well for relatively little cost for the hardware(antenna, internal tuners in TV/etc+no monthly subscription fees) , whether or not we also choose to subscribe to cable or satellite ....

Personally, for me it's the OTA service that's of most importantance. My current E* subscription(I don't do LiL, I have no need for it) I consider as a secondary thing below the importance of say, DVD, and I can(and have) easily do without it.

It's late in the thread but my gripe is not about people who get ther locals through cable or dish. It's about people who get their locals OTA and continue to use a funky indoor antenna, not for any good reason, but that they seem to be unable to grasp the concept that they could get good reception with a outdoor TV antenna.

Another one I don't get is a ugly antenna tower attached to the side of a house that doesn't put the antenna any higher than a roof mounted one on a short mast.
John

It's late in the thread but my gripe is not about people who get ther locals through cable or dish. It's about people who get their locals OTA and continue to use a funky indoor antenna, not for any good reason, but that they seem to be unable to grasp the concept that they could get good reception with a outdoor TV antenna.

Another one I don't get is a ugly antenna tower attached to the side of a house that doesn't put the antenna any higher than a roof mounted one on a short mast.
John

Billy Crystal, as Fernado says, "It is better to look good than to feel good."

Some people realize they'll need professional assistance to get a roof mount, and want to see if they can get "good enough" without.

I've got a DB2 in my window, and it works pretty darned good. Yeah, a roof mount would be better, but this is surprisingly good. (Of course, this isn't my house, so I can't go putting stuff on the roof :b )

I would like to find someone to install a OTA antenna on my roof. Easier said than done. Does anyone know any installers in the Bay Area - East Bay (CA)? One company I called wanted mucho $$$ but I said I wanted to setup an appt. They never called back. I do get OTA with rabbit ears but am tired of constantly adjusting it.

I'm looking for the same thing in central Texas, with similar results (zilch). Once I get my post count up to 5 I'll start a thread on it, I think it needs discussion (lack of professional roof top installers and a step by step "Safe, GROUNDED Roof Top Antenna Installation for Dummies" for those who will have to do it themselves in the meantime)

This thread is practically a repeat of this current thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=827969

In so far as a more direct answer, I suspect that many people are just plain ignorant about the concept of using an antenna.


I had some friends who got a HD Tv a few weeks ago. They have Dish and so Dish came out and set them up. They asked the installer if there was any way they could get their locals in HD. He told them no. The store they where they bought the TV (Best Buy) didn't tell them anything (not even how to access the TV's menu). When I went over to their house with a Silver Sensor I wasn't using
(I put up an outdoor antenna) I went into the TV menu (they had no idea how to do that--don't laugh--too many people think when you buy a TV all you do is bring it home and turn it on) and, of course, contrast and brightness were maxed out).
They were amazed at what a difference a few simple adjustments made. I hooked up the antenna and had their locals in HD in less than 5 minutes. Why don't more people use antennas? In many cases, they don't know they can or thye have no idea how to hook them up. There's still a lot of education to be done.

They asked the installer if there was any way they could get their locals in HD. He told them no. From E*'s standpoint, that's correct (meaning Dish won't supply or install an antenna .... it's a shame since they included that damned ATSC tuner).
The store they where they bought the TV (Best Buy) didn't tell them anything (not even how to access the TV's menu). Isn't that what that booklet full of gibberish is for ?? You know, the one that went in the trash with the box and packing ??

From E*'s standpoint, that's correct

Then the following seems strange to me, given SD4934's "any way to receive them" comment :

A year or two ago, I saw Charile Egren explaining on his "Charile Chat" program how a E* subscriber could receive HD locals OTA with their E* receiver+antenna ...

I guess Charlie has nothing to do with "E*'s standpoint" then ... ;)

I showed the new Comcast propoganda ad to our Sales Manager yesterday.

He told me how he had gone to one of the Big-Box retailers a few days ago, to buy a cable for his HDTV. The saleskid asked him whether he had Cable or Satellite service for his HD.

He replied that he was getting HDTV via an antenna. The saleskid told him there was no possible way he was getting HDTV over the air, since it HAS to be via Cable or Satellite...."stations can't broadcast HDTV OTA".

Our sales manager took him out to the parking lot (no, he didn't beat him up :) ), and showed him where the towers were located, along the mountain tops. The sales kid said that no one had ever mentioned OTA reception to him in his training, and he was shocked to find out the truth.

Why am I not surprised ?

Our sales manager took him out to the parking lot (no, he didn't beat him up ), and showed him where the towers were located, along the mountain tops. The sales kid said that no one had ever mentioned OTA reception to him in his training, and he was shocked to find out the truth.

the last 30 plus years was spent promoting cable and satellite as the best programming option for television.

the "current generation" of viewers therefore really does not know off air exists nor are many interested. except in areas that are not serviced by sat and cable and off air by antenna is the only option.

off air is again getting exposure...but will not enjoy the numbers experienced years ago when there were less options.

-there are too many options today for delivery and equipment
-hdtv aint cheap
-it is not an exact science and selection of equipment is not straight forward
-reception success is not consistant
-antennas on roofs are out of vogue
-there is installation and start up costs while cable and sat. are basically free
-inside reception is not successful for everyone
-hdtv is complicated for hookup and understanding of what is available
-hdtv programming is missing in action
-not all stations are broadcasting hd but sd digital
-many do not realize that they are even watching hd and are lost when it comes to basic hookup

should I go on?

There's a definite "Just make it work" appeal to Cable. I have an antenna, I had fun researching and getting it set up as best I could... but when I'm sitting there watching Heroes or Lost and I start to break up, it's frustrating

[QUOTE=hall).
Isn't that what that booklet full of gibberish is for ?? You know, the one that went in the trash with the box and packing ??[/QUOTE]

That's true, but how many Joe Six Packs actually read that booklet?

I showed the new Comcast propoganda ad to our Sales Manager yesterday.

He told me how he had gone to one of the Big-Box retailers a few days ago, to buy a cable for his HDTV. The saleskid asked him whether he had Cable or Satellite service for his HD.

He replied that he was getting HDTV via an antenna. The saleskid told him there was no possible way he was getting HDTV over the air, since it HAS to be via Cable or Satellite...."stations can't broadcast HDTV OTA".

Our sales manager took him out to the parking lot (no, he didn't beat him up :) ), and showed him where the towers were located, along the mountain tops. The sales kid said that no one had ever mentioned OTA reception to him in his training, and he was shocked to find out the truth.

:D LMAO !!! :D

Your Sales Manager should ask the kid what is ATSC and NTSC tuner for. Even better should send in a undercover news coverage team to see what the big box store salespeople say when people go in and ask how to get HD with OTA. That would be a news flash when the truth comes out. I like it when I put them on the spot and then they go crying to the manager to get me straight on how to get HD and OTA can't do HD and only Cable or Sat-Dish then of course I will ask them why the OTA antenna say "HD-Ready". They are speechless after that. Now that was priceless.

-Willie

I actually moved my antenna from the roof into the attic after I went all digital, I could lose some signal strength without losing PQ unlike with analog and I didn't have to move my antenna back after wind storms.

I was surprised to find out at my work there are a handful of well paid people there with OTA only and I know of two of them who also watch HD via OTA.

I don't trust most of the surveys out now, with all the digital SDTV sets sold now days I don't think they are accurately counting digital ota viewers. My parents had an HD set with SD digital cable and HD via OTA for a long time because the HD cable box was too expensive.

For me basic cable was no longer worth the money to see mostly re-runs of shows I have already seen. Now that I can DVR I rarely feel the urge to channel surf.

Yeah, basic cable has been relegated to near-worthlessness, compared to what it was 20 years ago.

But they still getcha by charging so much more just to get stuff that'll look more acceptable on your HD display, even though you probably wouldn't even choose to watch over half of it if it weren't in HD :rolleyes:.

I use one along with my D*. All channels come in at 95% or higher. But when I tell pepole about all the extra channels for "free" they are amazed and most cable and sat componeys do offer the Extra locals just the primairys.
I used to get HDNet via OTA for a year or so. But that was when it was all demo stuff. But it looked amazing as it was the best HD at the time.

I get 2 extra PBS. Infact I get PBS kids which is extra on D*. As well as 24 radar 3 religius channels.. And news rebrodcasts...

I wonder what would happen if/when we have our next recession? Will people live in their cars, so they can have enough money to continue to pay for satellite and cable TV?

It sounds like most people pay as much for TV and radio (Cable and Satellite) as they do for power, gas, or telephone. In some cases, maybe even as much as their mortgage.

I have a ballpark amount of around $50/mo for non-essential services like pay-TV, broadband, cellphone, etc. I wouldn't get broadband until it dropped under $50/mo (yes, I've had it a long time) and currently pay $18/mo. My Dish bill is $60/mo and cellphone is $60/mo. I don't compare any of those to my electric, gas, water, etc. When I switched from Dish to Time Warner, I got a substantial (50%) discount for leaving satellite. Once that ran out, my bill crept up to $80+ a month .... and I went back to Dish. That's just too much to me for a non-essential service.

It sounds like most people pay as much for TV and radio (Cable and Satellite) as they do for power, gas, or telephone. In some cases, maybe even as much as their mortgage.

Where I live (central Texas) Cox Cable is around $49.00/month and no HD programming. I'm doing OTA right now and getting some great HDTV programming (mainly PBS) and intend to expand that with a roof top HD UHF/VHF antenna as soon as I can figure out the specifics of the installation.

Yeah, basic cable has been relegated to near-worthlessness, compared to what it was 20 years ago.


So true. Instead of raising prices, they deleted channels in small increments over a period of time. when I called to cancel, they didn't even bother to try to retain me as a customer.