Anyone still watching TV solely via OTA broadcasts is probably not going to stop just because of the oncoming digital transition, at least according to new survey results. The Association of Public Television Stations surveyed 1,153 households and figures only 12% would switch to cable or satellite service, with about half purchasing a converter box or new digital TV to keep getting free TV. That makes sense, since anyone who hasn't gotten cable or satellite yet is probably not moved by the channels available, and with upgraded digital sound and picture quality, there's even less reason to switch. Still, we're not sold on the APTS president's statement that rabbit ears are poised for a big comeback as "wireless TV", new name or not, most viewers will go where the content is.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DarkLightConnection @ Jan 19th 2008 7:08PM
I'm one of these.. Do whatever, I'm not paying for paid TV.
My uncle has it, and it sucks. There's nothing good to see (at least to my very personal taste). The only interesting thing is Discovery HD, but I'm not paying $50 a month just for the Discovery channel
The only other programs I see on the TV are Nova (wich is free, in OTA HD thru PBS) and The Simpson (OTA in HD thru Azteca 24)
T-bone @ Jan 19th 2008 7:18PM
I'm one of the people that did the opposite. Just had basic cable to get a clear signal. Now with HD via OTA for free, I dropped cable altogether back in 2006.
However, the Dish HD only package for $30 is tempting. I can buy 3 HD movies at list ($34.99) and still pay less each month than what some do for cable :)
jimBOB @ Jan 19th 2008 9:22PM
Like T-bone, we dropped our cable recently in favor of antenna. Now we get clearer reception on our local channels than we ever did through the cable (thanks to DTV) plus three new PBS channels, one of which is HD. Sweet! Plus, I'm not paying a monthly fee to Rupert Murdoch.
granny down east @ Jan 19th 2008 9:41PM
We have no cable or dish, but receive OTA digital on a set of rabbit ears w/ UHF plate.
My friends say the 1080i signal from WITN, 50 miles away, is better than their cable.
All of these signals are UHF. There's one channel broadcasting OTA digital on VHF, and I cannot receive that. Probably the rabbit ears-- anybody got any ideas??
The Pepto Pimp @ Jan 21st 2008 1:15PM
Your friend is right, your OTA from WITN is an uncompressed digital signal. Right now, OTA with is the ONLY way to get uncompressed HD. Every other delivery format compresses the signal, resulting in phenomenon as significant as muted colors, digital video artifacts, lower resolution, and overall less satisfactory experience.
Greg @ Jan 19th 2008 10:31PM
I work at a mid-size CE retailer, and OTA antennas are hotter than ever. We sell probably 5 a day where 2 years ago we probably sold 1 a week.
DTV has done wonders for the OTA marketplace. Where we used to carry 3 models of antennas, we now carry 11. ELEVEN.
To Granny Down East, it's probably not your antenna, it's probably the station. Here in Indianapolis, all of our local stations broadcast digitally, but even with our pretty powerful, amplified antenna at the store, we can hardly get one station. It's because some stations that are already broadcasting digitally are not doing so at full power yet.
granny down east @ Jan 21st 2008 3:04PM
Thanks guys, for the replies. I found a blog
(AVSForums) that confirmed what you said- the one VHF digital channel probably necessitates a larger antenna- like a CM bowtie.
T-bone @ Jan 19th 2008 11:02PM
All the stations where I am are UHF (sans Univision), but in 2009, Fox will switch back to Channel 7 (VHS), so that is why I went with a UHF/VHF antenna. (Well actually my cousin gave it to me because he thought it sucked). I have it "mounted" (read: laying on the rafters) in the attic. I can get all the locals in my city (20 miles away) and for the city to the north (60 miles away).
Plus, I get the CW in HD where all the TWC customers get is good old SD :)
If I were looking at a new antenna, I'd double check with the FCC website to see what frequency they will be broadcasting on in 2009 and buy appropriately...so you don't have to buy again in 2009. Frequencies 55(?)-69 are the ones being sold off, not the VHF.
EZO @ Jan 20th 2008 1:34AM
I get all my local network programming via an outdoor antenna. Even though I do have Dish Network their signal is not as good as the free digital OTA signals.
kevin @ Jan 20th 2008 1:38PM
The only way I'd subscribe to any pay package (at the current rates) is if I got the convert box all hooked up and found that I couldn't pull all of the stations in over the air. IF that were the case, I'd go with the $10/month basic, basic cable package.
Felipe @ Jan 21st 2008 3:14AM
I have just OTA because cable/satellite are just too expensive.
I'm not interested in paying $ 50 a month at least.
David Moisan @ Jan 21st 2008 9:44AM
I dropped cable five years ago and didn't watch TV for a few years due to eye surgeries. I have a homebuilt OTA antenna hooked to the Hauppauge on my PC. I love it!
I miss the public access channels on cable (I work at the studio) but I can't pay $50/mo. for something that'll be $60 in 12 months. (Something is wrong when it will near $100/mo. for standard cable.)
William C Bonner @ Jan 21st 2008 1:12PM
I'm glad to see lots of comments from peopel similar to me that have actually gone away from cable for the better and cheaper content that's available over the air.
I think it's funny, your statement of going where the content is, since with the current writers strike, I'm getting that much better value for money.
DenverBob @ Jan 21st 2008 5:43PM
I think the tone of the article is very odd, considering 20% of Americans still receive television OTA. This is why Feb 2009 will shock Americans so much, when those 20% turn on the TV and get static.
Not everyone is wealthy enough to afford cable or satellite. Before switching to DirecTV, my cable bill (Comcast Silver package) was about $100/mo. DirecTV is better for the first year but about the same for the second. And if someone is having to decide out of desperation whether to heat the house or watch cable/satellite for the same money, the heat wins hands down. And yes, there are people who are that poor in America through no fault of their own.
DarkLightConnection @ Jan 21st 2008 10:39PM
I'm one of the "that poor people".
Here in Mexico, you don't call "poor" the man who can't afford a $50/mo service. You call "rich" the man who can.
Sometimes it's REALLY hard to believe how wealthy Americans are (in comparsion to us poor Mexicans).. but I'm not willing to trade my liberty for a wealthy life
DarkLightConnection @ Jan 21st 2008 10:42PM
And for a man who pays $100/mo for a luxury service (ie. TV), you call him "rich b!tch"