Originally Posted by Calaveras
I don't understand the thinking here. To me you need the minimum antenna that will reliably receive all the stations you want so you can watch TV. What happens when the antenna that meets the WAF doesn't receive the stations you want? Do you give up TV? Is that acceptable to anyone?
It doesn't make any sense that the WAF is based on aesthetics when the issue is performance. There are no magic antennas. You either install what is required to do the job or pay for cable.
Most people who cut the cord do so because they don't want to pay outrageous cable rates. If you want free TV then don't complain about the antenna needed to do the job.
We have a few reasons.
First, neither of us watch much video. My wife simply doesn't watch TV. Period. I like to watch sports and I binge view Netflix shows.
Second, if we are consuming video, that video is delivered over the Internet via Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, or Aereo, which is an app / site that streams live TV in NYC.
Third, I work on the finance side of the Internet industry, and as such I am focused on creating a seamless, wireless system across multiple screens including my TV, iPad, and smartphones. Video is a part of that, but so is gaming, music, photos, etc. I'm working with people who are trying to disrupt the traditional TV ecosystem with gaming consoles, new video services, and over the top hardware, so I need to be using this type of setup at home (for testing, and plus I just plain enjoy it).
The reason I want the antenna is because it would give me more access to video, including live sporting events. As long as it doesn't look unsightly, why not? But given I already have access to live TV through Aereo, and given we rarely watch TV, I would never, ever get something that had to be installed on a window.
Hope that clears things up.