Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Antenna Sales Are Rising, In Another Sign of Churn In TV Watching (startribune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the rabbit-ears dept.

Rick Schumann shares a report from Star Tribune: Twenty percent of homes in the U.S. use a digital antenna to access live TV, up from 16 percent just two years ago, according to Parks Associates market research in Texas. The Twin Cities has an even higher antenna percentage. Local antenna installers say business has been rising about 20 percent to 25 percent annually for several years. It's the eighth largest broadcast-only market in the country, with more than 22 percent of homes using antennas to get local TV, according to TVb.org, a local broadcast trade association. Duane, Wawrzyniak, owner of Electronic Servicing in Silver Lake, Minnesota, cites high TV bills every month for the increased antenna sales. According to the report, "In the Twin Cities and much of Minnesota, antenna users can receive 10 to 60 TV channels, often in high-definition quality, over the air at no expense."

You can check the DTV signals that are available at your location here.

186 comments

  1. Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've never subscribed to cable. I used antenna and Windows Media Center for a long time. I stopped and just use Netflix. It has enough content to occupy my TV watching time. The antenna and DVRs are just too much work to get to a near Netflix experience. Cable's only way to survive is to beat Netflix in the user experience. (No commercials / Binge Watching / Always new content)

    1. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you have decent speed internet.

      Sadly, not everybody does.

      Of course, for many, they don't have decent antenna coverage or internet.

    2. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Netflix is slowly but surely bringing unskippable ads back, so...piracy it is.

    3. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Thundercat007 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I mostly watch or re-watch my favorite shows since newer stuff is usually rammed full of PC content. I've torrented all my old shows, I keep Netflix for the kid to watch kid shows. As soon as they introduce ads, I'll simply torrent the kids shows too. Sick of ads EVERYWHERE. I'm not marketable nor in the age group that'll buy the newest and latest because it's the newest latest. Besides, Netflix still can't stop my VPN for Murica Netflix. So suck it Netflix.

    4. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Netflix is increasingly facing an uphill battle against publishers and content owners for rights to stream. Those people are in the process of fragmenting the market into a million different subcription services with maybe one good thing to watch. For companies that broadcast however, you can just sit there with your digital antenna and get their one good show, skip the ads, and say "fuck you" for as long as it lasts.

      My recommendation is a good digital antenna for your environment and tablo, if you don't want to DIY and want turnkey. I'm very happy with that solution. Of course if you want to DIY, there are a few options out there and you can save more bucks. I personally found the tablo to cost less than my time investment, and it should work with any other TV streaming device you use (i.e. roku, appletv, whatever).

    5. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Only if you have decent speed internet.

      And that, I think, is the defining factor. I live outside the US so I only know what I read about in news stories, but it sounds like a lot of you guys have really expensive Internet that would barely qualify as basic broadband in many parts of the world. If everyone had fast, reasonably-priced Internet, would there be any demand at all for having to watch whatever bland crap someone else programs at a given time rather than watching what you want, when you want via streaming media?

    6. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      But some rube who cannot access the internet or get a clear signal is nothing at all.

      I can haz mail merge?

    7. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by nura78 · · Score: 1

      I can see your point there. I too do not have a cable TV sub and refuse to get one. I still think its worth having an antenna. Case in point: during Hurricane Sandy, internet and cell service died in our area. The power went out also, but for us it came back on the next day. The rooftop antenna from the 1980s that i retrofitted worked perfectly and we were able to watch TV without needing an internet connection. There is a case to be made for OTA. Also its free... unless you live in the UK. Then you have that retarded license fee thing :-|

    8. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      of course you're still being the internet connection and paying for the netflix as well.

      sure it's just a few tens of bucks per month but that's still few tens of bucks per month.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 0

      But some rube who cannot access the internet or get a clear signal is nothing at all.

      I can haz mail merge?

      Screw mail MERGE, I need mail PURGE! I have too much mail! I'm tempted to just go into my e-mail client and hit Ctrl-A then DELETE, but I have a feeling I might need a FEW of those in the future.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    10. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      It honestly depends on _where_ in the country you are.

      Most anywhere on the coasts, or in medium-to-large cities, you can usually get pretty decent internet. Rural areas are going to be worse (e.g. just DSL, or if you're particularly unlucky, satellite) -- and well, there's a lot of that in the US.

      Around here, the cable companies are starting off at 400 mbps for $65/month (although it's $45 for the first year) -- plus local taxes, etc (note, the US has varying sales tax depending on where you are in the country -- we do not have a set tax rate for the entire country). Although, the local cable ISP also has a 100mbps plan that I cannot select for some reason. Finally, there's a 900 mbps plan for $125 / mo.

      Real quick check against BT in the UK, looks like the best they'll offer is ~67 mbps for 55 GBP. (approx $70). Not sure if BT has tax included or not. I didn't check through their fine print.

      Now, that's not really a fair comparison, since BT is just DSL -- which we don't get here (the former DSL provider rolled out FTTH in the area, it starts at 100mbps for $50, plus tax).

      NOTE -> I didn't bother looking at data caps or the like.

    11. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Still the local channels will often offer timely news and weather, while Netflix will not.

      At least in my area, if there is a major weather event it will show its progress even with commercials playing.

      In terms of getting immediate updates on local news events and weather. Local TV channels are better then the Internet (Where there is a lag to publish), Radio (Which can only cover one story at once), Print media (a full day delay)

      Television is more then just entertainment. And News is more then just global and national politics.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      Why can't people deal with multiple issues?
      I am not a doctor for that child, I am only a citizen who can vote during a particular time frame and lack the charisma to push for change, I am a technical person, who is good with technology. In terms of priorities in life, I should focus in life on what I can manage and control.
      If this person can get a clear signal and internet, then it will let him know about the child who is dying (and perhaps he is a doctor who can help), realize that the president is lying, thus push further for change.

      We can help in our own ways. Sometimes we are the ones who support the visible forces that cause change.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around here, the cable companies are starting off at 400 mbps for $65/month

      Wow you weren't kidding when you said things were bad. 400 millibits per second is like... 30 bytes per minute. Not worth $65/mo if you ask me.

    14. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      sure it's just a few tens of bucks per month but that's still few tens of bucks per month.

      If this amount of $$ is a major concern for your household, I would posit that you should spend your time NOT watching TV, but doing whatever it takes to educate yourself so you can get a better job with better pay.

      In this day in age, "tens of dollars" a month should not be a show stopper for anyones; household.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you know, the worst Internet outside the US in the entire world is 100 Terabytes/s at a cost of one penny per century. In the US, the best Internet is 28.8K at $10,000 per week.

    16. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I mostly watch or re-watch my favorite shows since newer stuff is usually rammed full of PC content.

      Too true. I looked forward to and tried to watch the new Lost in Space reboot, but they fucked it so hard it couldn't walk. The family is white yet Judy is inexplicably black. The mother is clearly the brains of the whole operation and the father, despite supposedly being gung ho military, is a whiny timid man child. Dr. Smith is a female con man - or con woman if you prefer - who is actually NOT Dr. Smith. Every man on the show is a deeply flawed loser or clueless authoritarian. The women (save Dr. Smith) are all heroic, self sacrificing, winners. The whole thing is a PC/multi cultural abortion. I found myself waiting for the carrot man punchline payoff for this terrible joke.

      I have kept it for the kids as you say, but Netflix has slowly removed most of the TV show and movie content in favor of their home grown shitfest claptrap and third rate direct-to-video trash to the point there is nothing I care to see on it. I'm definitely on the bubble and it won't take much for me to cancel.

    17. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      ...a major weather event...

      I *HATE* our local news because living far enough off the coast to avoid many hurricanes while being outside of tornado zones means a heavy rainstorm is a weather event for some of these chuckleheads. I don't know how many times a year they throw up the weather graphic or break into regular programming to update us on... rain...

      I'm not saying these storms aren't sometimes dangerous. Some bring high winds or flash flooding (think yards and creeks, not rockslides or cars sliding away). But they'll hype up weather because that's where the eyeballs are. Apparently. So much so they advertise their weather apps and coverage pretty much year round with lots of dramatic soundbites from historical reporting.

      I stopped watching local newscasts when it became apparent ratings were more important than relevant local information.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    18. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching TV is not that fucking important

    19. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I mostly watch or re-watch my favorite shows since newer stuff is usually rammed full of PC content.

      I should have known, the next thing the kids would get into would be vintage episodes of Computer Chronicles.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    20. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Being that our weather system is new rather screwed up. We don't need hurricanes to cause real damage. In the past decade, houses that have been built hundred years ago, are being washed away in creaks that have diverted hundreds of feet due to heavy rain and flooding conditions overnight. Roads have been washed away to become impassible until a major fix and often adding a bridge where there wasn't one before.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watch a fair amount of Netflix and have not seen these unskippable ads at all. Apparently that is a common misconception. A very small subset of users are being piloted personalized content and it is most definitely skippable.

    22. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, bacon is the great unifier. It will cross all political boundaries and create the noms!

    23. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I applaud your modern internet connection. During the summers when nothing is on and the kids are in school, we subscribe to Netflix. It is a terrible experience with hours of buffering for an hour of blocky content. We live on a street with less than 20 houses. Nobody other than AT&T is interested in running a line up the road and AT&T had dropped their official offering of basic DSL from their website. I expect if they have any equipment failures, they will apologize for no longer offering any sort of service on my street.

    24. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit acting like Seoul and Seattle are the only two cities in the world.

    25. Re:Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never subscribed to cable either. I haven't watched OTA TV in years and get my passive entertainment from YouTube and The Pirate Bay nowadays.

    26. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a Republican, moron. I'm not a Democrat either. In fact, I'm not aligned with any of your pathetic political gangs because I can think and stand for myself.

      And come try it, you worthless piece of shit. You threaten my life and I'll happily put a round or ten into you.

    27. Re: Antenna are still worse then netflix by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Real quick check against BT in the UK, looks like the best they'll offer is ~67 mbps for 55 GBP. (approx $70). Not sure if BT has tax included or not. I didn't check through their fine print.

      If it was an advert for a consumer service, it included all taxes in the price. If it was targeted at businesses, then they might quote either the tax-included price, or the no-tax price, but if you tried to pay the no-tax price, you'd have to provide your business' VAT tax reference at the point of sale, otherwise you;d have to pay the taxes and then negotiate a rebate from the government. But I don't know how that works, since I've never run a business - and trying to figure it out from the manuals gave me a headache and I gave up on the idea of trying to run a business.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. How many are making their own antennas... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    versus buying one. I've made a bunch of Gray-Hoverman style antennas using foam board and foil tape (indoor use only, obviously). These pick up everything in my area and cost less than $5 each.

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by deek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people just like to build stuff. There is an inherent satisfaction factor that you cannot buy, in creating something yourself.

      Did his post touch a sore topic with you? It rather seems that way.

    2. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are people really this poor? Can't you afford a Walmart $10 antenna instead of a $5 homebrew one with half the performance? Really? I mean, seriously? How? What? Why? Get a job, or move away, or SOMETHING! Don't you like the flavor of food? Why would you live in place like that? Obviously you are literate. That's how you posted this. By reading words, and then writing them. Where I'm from that means $15/hr automatically unless you're a crack addict. Crack addicts only get $12/hr, and that means it's slightly more minutes per antenna of labor. They can still afford antennas for their squats and hovels. Just tell your mom you're sorry, find a real job, and fly her out once you get your first paycheck.

      Belittle the interest in those who learn to DIY all you want. Us, and I am not the OP, will still be able to do things that you cannot because we took the time to learn how. That is the problem with rabid consumerism it is snake that eats it's own brains over time. But fine you just stick with being a Walmart slave. We on the other hand can and will survive the chaos of economic collapse. WHY? Precisely because we can also build green our own houses, repair electronics, built our own power tools, knives, swords, horseshoes and even fix our old short wave radio equipment and communicate with each other when you cannot! We are the poor and we are meek but we are not stupid.

    3. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      $5 for a homebrew antenna? That's pure luxury! I make mine from Pringles cans. They were on sale last week at 99 cents per can so I bought 50 of them.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And when the thing breaks, you know how to fix it since you made it yourself and understand how it works.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Half the performance? I built this 2x4 coat hanger antenna and get 149 channels! Most of those Walmart $10 antennas aren't worth $10. I suppose there are inexpensive quality antennas available but all the ones I saw were at least $50. RF signals don't care how much you spent just how well you positioned your antenna. I spent the money I saved on a HDHomerun Connect Quatro so now I can watch OTA anywhere.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    6. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your troll. It does bring to mind some things that might be of interest to others.

      1) First off, people are that poor. Get over it.
      2) Next, not everyone is downtown with line-of-sight, and that $10 antenna from BoxStore doesn't cut it.
      3) Finally, your $5 DIY Gray-Hoverman is the alternative to the $150 top-of-the line 4-bay array.

      Personally, I love futzing with TV antennas - having built about 20, mostly free from foil tins and hangers. The best is the dual bow-tie I fabbed up from $10 well spent at the dollar store. It beats the performance of G-H, though I am still tweaking my G-H designs. I currently run with four operational antennas - all indoor - selectable via RF switches and get rock-solid reception on every broadcast channel within a hundred mile radius by using the right antenna for each. I have yet to exceed $100 in costs on the antennas.

      I suspect you don't run linux, or play with raspberry pi's either. Too busy browsing BoxStore I guess.

    7. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a home brew have half the performance? Is this some kind of modern capitalist child retardation?

    8. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I make mine from Pringles cans.

      I wish like hell I could afford a name brand potato chip canister for an antenna. I'm using a store brand and I probably only get half the channels that you get.

    9. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez, I wish I had the money for canister potato chips! I had to make my antenna from the metalized mylar bag my potato chips came in once I found someone who could lend me a pair of scissors. I'll tell you about its reception after I can find a TV to borrow.

    10. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Please don't take this the wrong way,...........

      but ummm I suspect you're one of the few, by a long shot. (You've got a 5 digit ID for a start,....)

    11. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      Are people really this poor? Can't you afford a Walmart $10 antenna instead of a $5 homebrew one with half the performance? Really? I mean, seriously? How? What? Why?

      Wow, you're really wound up! The antennas I build perform better than the cheap patch antennas sold by WalMart (or "As Seen on TV!"). I like making things. I cook my own food (but, yeah, I do eat a Big Mac from time to time...). You can spend your money how you want, I don't care.

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    12. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've made a bunch of Gray-Hoverman style antennas using foam board and foil tape (indoor use only, obviously). These pick up everything in my area and cost less than $5 each.

      I made one out of a piece of wood, six screws, some leftover # 14 wire from a house rewiring project, and a balun (also lying about).

      The townhouse is within about a mile of the east end of the Dumbarton in silicon valley. Pretty much ALL the digital signals the FCC says are detectable in my area are on on of three towers: North San Jose on a hilltop overlooking the bay (and a naked-eye object from my front yard), Sutro Tower near the Castro in San Francisco, and one to the east, just over the hills (near Walnut Creek if I recall correctly)

      Left off the reflector, since the SF and SJ towers are almost exactly opposite directions at my site. No reflector means I hit them both at about 3dB down from what I'd get from just one with the reflector present.

      Did I need to put it on the roof? In the attic? Heck, no. I stood it up it behind the TV -and-audio cabinet on the ground floor of a two-story house. It works just fine right through the wall, insulation, orchard, neighbors' houses, etc. (Also through the TV console to hit San Francisco.) AND it gets the signals from the one over-the-hill in the middle. (Didn't really expect that.)

      In fact the only thing it DOESN'T get is the last analog TV signal, a low-power channel-6 station south of San Jose, run by a church (mainly to broadcast their services to their shutins, from what I hear).

      For those familiar with analog TV, the channel 6 FM audio carrier is just below the FM band, and many older FM radios will pick it up just fine. That's probably why they didn't go digital.

      The Gray-Hoverman is a great (and open source!) design. And while digital TV doesn't carry quite as far as analog (because it suddenly dies when the signal-to-noise ratio overcomes the forward error correction), when you CAN get it it is either just perfect, or (if on the ragged edge) has the occasional freeze, while analog would be "receivable" but horribly corrupted by multipath ghosting and "snow" from noise.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    13. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Of course now that I got it working we don't watch it. B-) At ALL.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    14. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by clovis · · Score: 1

      $5 for a homebrew antenna? That's pure luxury! I make mine from Pringles cans. They were on sale last week at 99 cents per can so I bought 50 of them.

      I make my kids hold up some wires and aluminum tubes, and they rotate on command to pick of channels from different directions. They can even get on the roof for those more distant channels.
      However, they have incurred more expense than the $5 you mentioned.

    15. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Potato *chips*! That must be what I'm doing wrong because I can't pick up a thing on my spud. Slice it and fry it, then?

    16. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

      Mylar bag? You were lucky.

      We had to make our antenna out of dirt.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    17. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      $5 for a homebrew antenna? That's pure luxury! I make mine from Pringles cans. They were on sale last week at 99 cents per can so I bought 50 of them.

      I had a pterodactyl on top of my TV-set, who would periodically stare off into space and mutter "it's a living". To this day I have no idea what he was talking about or whom he was talking TO. We weren't PAYING him, so... I don't see how he was making a living doing it. He simply had no choice because we super-glued his feet to the thing, and told him if he didn't hold his wings out, we'd beat the shit out of him. Got pretty good reception most of the time.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    18. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I'm in France, where almost everyone has an TV antenna, I've never seen a homemade one being used in practice. Unless by "homemade antenna", you mean a piece of wire sticking out of the RF connector, with no fucks given about the proper shape or dimensions.

      I know it can be done easily but at the same time, why bother when you can buy them for 10 to 30€ if you don't find one in a dumpster, unless you enjoy building stuff that is.

    19. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Pfft. I made one of a coax cable and just put one end in my TV and the other in the wall.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      That's a nice Simpsons reference.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by judoguy · · Score: 1
      Things can sometime be built cheaply if your labor is valued at zero. My labor cost is quite a bit greater than zero so I bought one.

      On the other hand, if it's something I enjoy doing, and building stuff is generally one of those things, then building something that costs more than just buying it is perfectly understandable. Recreation has value in and of itself. I just didn't want to build an antenna:).

      I'm pretty sure that was your motivation as well. And it is cool to build something that works well.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    22. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by judoguy · · Score: 2

      Mylar bag? You were lucky.

      We had to make our antenna out of dirt.

      Wow, an antenna AND the ground all in one!

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    23. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I can't believe all the rich people posting in this thread, openly bragging about how often they have access to potatoes. Insensitive clods, all of you!!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    24. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by bano · · Score: 1

      I did this once. I intended to use the cable tv cable in the wall of my apartment as an antenna.
      After plugging it in and scanning for channels, I discovered the cable was active and I had access to free cable all along.

    25. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Are people really this poor? Can't you afford a Walmart $10 antenna instead of a $5 homebrew one with half the performance? "

      How do you know the homebrew has "half the performance?" Some inexpensive commercial stuff works brilliantly. But a lot truly is junk. And the amount of signal one has to work with can vary dramatically over short distances. In practice, a homemade antenna or even a few feet of wire hung off the TV antenna terminal may give one all the signal they need.

      The idea that store bought is always better is right up there with newer is better in the world's list of dumbish notions..

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    26. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "I can't believe all the rich people posting in this thread, openly bragging about how often they have access to potatoes"

      I hope that you don't seriously believe that Pringles are made out of potatoes.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    27. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      OP here.. When I first dumped Comcast cable I was out of work and I built an antenna out of parts from the hardware store and the dollar store and mounted it on a piece of electrical conduit to the side of the rented house I was living in at the time. Worked great. Still have what's left of it sitting in my garage, but I later bought a Channelmaster antenna with higher gain. It paid for itself in the first few months.

    28. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TROLLOLOLOLOLOL.

      You've been spotted. Time to dump your trolling account here and make a new one. Or just post as an AC like the rest of the trolls. Or KYS, preferably.

    29. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      The cheapest Antenna that I bought works pretty good but bought two others that were terrible compared to a homebrew made out of coat hangers. I only tried buying outdoor ones because the homebrew is rusting and looks bad. I have repaired it but might just make a new one that is more durable.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    30. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5 for a homebrew antenna? That's pure luxury! I make mine from Pringles cans.

      Not in VHF and UHF bands you didn't.

    31. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      That's a nice Simpsons reference.

      I was going for Flintstones actually. They (the writers of "The Simpsons") may themselves have referenced this, though I can't recall; I haven't seen every episode.

      (I think in more than one episode of the Flintstones, the pterodactyl was used as the stylus of a record player, but it's the same basic idea.)

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    32. Re: How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did this for years, depending on your internet provider you may get lucky and receive free cable tv along with it. Just get yourself a coax tap and test it out. I had free HBO for the longest time, now granted the channels were analog for the most part with only a few HD local chans, but free was free. My current ISP now requires a $10 box rental for the roughly the same channels abit with more in HD. If you connect without their box it's just infomercials for cable packages and other chans with a PowerPoint telling you that the box is now required for viewing. Something about bandwidth was the 'supposive' reasoning behind the new requirement, so it was time to break out the OTA antenna.

    33. Re: How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another option: a long coax cable, or multiple strung together with joiners, a garden shovel or trough, a coax splitter or tap, and your neighbors cable service. Beware the Feds. Happy digging.

    34. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital carries further than analog with less TX power.

      By the time a digital signal "falls off the cliff" to the receiver, an analog signal approaching that level has long since degraded into a fuzzy garbage... at lest with DVB-T (MPEG4), maybe ATSC is an awful reinvention of existing standards for the sake of being different like NTSC was? :D

    35. Re: How many are making their own antennas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your problem, raising them in your own. Obsession with possessions and ownership. Use the JIT model. When you need an antennae held, just swing by the local park or school and grab one. Kill the ice cream truck guy and the kids will run up to you. Tell them its sour cherry jelly if they ask about the blood splatter.

    36. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I helped a friend decades ago where car antenna broke at the base, those stiff telescopic on right side in front of passenger door. Wrapped a coat hanger around base and it worked ok. Kind of ugly though.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    37. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by tmjva · · Score: 1

      I built mine for better reception than the top of the line Wals-Mart crap.

      Although I used real copper gauge wire instead of coat hangers.  The hard part was finding a Balun.  Then I realized my old kid's (moved out and gone away) Sega TV adapter with two Philips-Head screws did the trick.

      --
      Tracy Johnson
      Old fashioned text games hosted below:
      http://empire.openmpe.com/
      BT
    38. Re:How many are making their own antennas... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Dean Swift wrote the manual for you. There's good eating on one of them.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Digital antenna??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Is that a middle finger reference? I am pretty sure that 95% of households use that to communicate with neighbors. There is no such thing as a digital antenna in electronics.

    1. Re:Digital antenna??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there is. A digital antenna is one that can decode DTV signals.

    2. Re:Digital antenna??? by dohzer · · Score: 2

      They can receive radio signals, but I doubt the antenna alone is doing the decoding.

    3. Re:Digital antenna??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The antenna just picks up radio waves, like it always has.

    4. Re:Digital antenna??? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Sure they can. They have a built-in schmitt trigger.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Digital antenna??? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a digital antenna in electronics.

      Not even an active antenna with a class D amplifier?!?!

    6. Re:Digital antenna??? by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Funny

      But no one here knows schmitt.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    7. Re:Digital antenna??? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing there are some antennas optimised for the frequency range used by US digital TV broadcasts. Either that or it's snake oil.

    8. Re:Digital antenna??? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      In the good old days, this would be an appropriate comments for Slashdot, News for Nerds. Now look at the pap in the rest of the comments.

    9. Re: Digital antenna??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Triggered.

    10. Re:Digital antenna??? by hambone142 · · Score: 2

      Antennae are passive devices.

      The "digital" part is located *after* the antenna if the antenna is combined with amplification or signal processing.

      Antennae simply receive radio waves. The type of signal or modulation type is independent of antenna type.

  4. does broadcast-only include people with internet? by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't surprise me that broadcast-only is increasing especially if it includes people with broadband-only.
    If most of your entertainment is coming from netflix but you occasionally want to watch the news,
    it makes sense to get an antenna versus paying high prices for a cable service you don't need.

  5. Good news for my little Android app about antennas by Nicopa · · Score: 0

    I thought I would get less and less users in my Android app. I thought anyone is moving away from watching OTA TV. Good news then for my little hobby app that allows you to find which channels are around you... =)

    https://play.google.com/store/...

  6. Re:does broadcast-only include people with interne by PeopleAquarium · · Score: 1

    It surprises me. Local news is a cesspool of local criminal influence where I live.

  7. OTA fills a perfect niche by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Streaming video is great, but when it comes to watching news or local sports, having access to the local TV stations is still useful. An OTA antenna can fill in that gap, allowing you to still have access to live TV without an expensive monthly fee

    I do wonder how much longer OTA broadcasting is going to be around, though. ATSC is an incredibly inefficient standard (hell, it still uses MPEG-2 video! That's a few codec generations behind) and you just know telcos and others are desperate to get their hands on that spectrum. I'm glad more people are starting to tune in; that means there will be more pressure to preserve it. I just worry that most of these people are getting up there in age, and that this trend will reverse again once we start losing them.

    1. Re:OTA fills a perfect niche by PeopleAquarium · · Score: 1

      Where do you live?

    2. Re:OTA fills a perfect niche by Ken_g6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ATSC is being upgraded "real soon now" to version 3.0. On one hand ATSC 3.0 will have up to 4K resolution compressed with HEVC. On the other hand, it's may also have stuff like an effective "broadcast flag", so you may not be able to record your favorite shows, encryption, so you may get OTA pay-per-view or something, and upstream transmission which may be used for Facebook-like spying for advertisers or something.

      On the other other hand, there's supposed to be a "lighthouse" station for awhile with the major ATSC 1.0 channels, but they'll be compressed to heck, like Joe_Dragon says below.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    3. Re:OTA fills a perfect niche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "broadcast flag"? It could just be steganography, and your content get flagged when you upload it to youtube or other.

      Hmm, that the watermarking is part of the broadcast standard probably means it can be injected at the emitting station.
      Ominously, if you post a screen cap or if your audio is recorded by your phone or an intelligent speaker/home assistant then someone will know it came from OTA TV and from which emitter.
      I suppose you can have several watermarks, so have one from the TV channel and one from the content owner, or as fields of the same watermark.

      If the TV itself is connected to the Internet it will probably upload your watermarks to unknown parties without your informed consent.

    4. Re:OTA fills a perfect niche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTA may be incredibly inefficient if it was broadcasting to a single user like cellphone tv does. BUT, it is broadcasting to tens of thousands simultaneously, so after you divide bandwidth by 10K, even the bad encoder beats the most modern codec for bandwidth usage per viewer.

    5. Re:OTA fills a perfect niche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they let version 2 die, maybe they can do the same for version 3 -- don't want it -- version 1 is good enough and there's no need to fill landfills with another round of TVs

  8. in the atsc 1.0 to 3.0 switch get ready SD compres by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    in the atsc 1.0 to 3.0 switch get ready SD compressed so hard so that you have 5-6+ channels all on ONE 1.0 channel if you don't have an 3.0 box and no sub channels just your 4-5 mains + PBS.

  9. Sounds good to me by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Local news is a cesspool of local criminal influence where I live.

    Better than the national cesspool of higher-level criminal influence then. At least local criminals care about the city they live in too.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local news is a cesspool of local criminal influence where I live.

      Better than the national cesspool of higher-level criminal influence then. At least local criminals care about the city they live in too.

      And, they employ the local prostitutes as newscasters.

  10. Re:does broadcast-only include people with interne by asackett · · Score: 2

    I read something somewhere recently... Oh yeah:

    Get a job, or move away, or SOMETHING! Don't you like the flavor of food? Why would you live in place like that? ...
    Just tell your mom you're sorry, find a real job, and fly her out once you get your first paycheck.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

  11. Background Noise by mentil · · Score: 1

    For the most part, my family only has the TV on as background noise, paying periodic attention to news or whatever. They don't often attentively watch TV shows. Looking at it that way, why pay a large bill each month for background noise? The quality of broadcast shows doesn't even matter since they functionally equally well as noise. IMO that's what almost all of it is good for anyway.

    Furthermore, people's time is worth more now, what with all the media out there, and increased working hours. Why should I roll the dice on some new, unproven show, when I can wait for the season to end and the reviews/word of mouth to roll in, and binge only the stuff that stayed strong rather than sputtering and getting shitcanned after episode 6?

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  12. Just wait for the next tech oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've been enjoying my OTA HDTV solution. Although I think I bought the last two 20 foot antenna masts at my local TV shop. Sad that the local big-box stores told me that they didn't have an antenna mast but I should just break down and pay for electrical conduit. Nope... Nopesauce.

    We can all find our way back to OTA HDTV but there is a new push and I don't know the direct source. The new standard is ATSC 3.0 where any TV bought from 1900 to now.. and maybe now + 5 years will be obsolete (tuner-based) when these standards become mainstream. Welcome to SDTV-HDTV where your TV suddenly needs a third-party tuner to become useful again. This is the second wave.. where your OTA HDTV built-in tuner won't be supported under the full implemenation of ATSC 3.0. Your awesome OTA-enabled HDTV? It will need an external tuner. Your also awesome pci-e tuner in your home theater tv? It will need an external tuner. Your (this is me) Tablo HDTV PVR... will need an external tuner.

    #sigh #bigcontent #plannedobsolescence

    https://www.atsc.org/standards/atsc-3-0-standards/

    1. Re:Just wait for the next tech oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad that the local big-box stores told me that they didn't have an antenna mast but I should just break down and pay for electrical conduit.

      Electrical conduit is what I used, though I suppose you could also use sch 40 plumbing pipe. I used a heavy duty mount from amazon. The problem with the sch 40 plumbing pipe is weight. I think I only used 10ft of the electrical conduit, which I think was the tallest I could go with the mount without guy wires. You might need them even more with the heavier conduit, and of course a heavier mount.

      If anyone else is doing this, well, buy an electrical grounding rod. If you have a cheap electric jack hammer or hammer drill you may be able to take the bit out and drive it in that way. A heavy duty aluminum grounding wire is probably okay with the right fittings, making sure to get the wires ends shiny with steel wool and then use the antioxidant coating. At any rate, look up the grounding and get it right... It is very important.... You may also want to be sure your mount is up to the task and that your attaching to your roof someplace that can take the stresses. 20 foot is a heck of a moment arm.

    2. Re:Just wait for the next tech oblivion by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The new standard is ATSC 3.0 where any TV bought from 1900 to now.. and maybe now + 5 years will be obsolete (tuner-based) when these standards become mainstream. Welcome to SDTV-HDTV where your TV suddenly needs a third-party tuner to become useful again.

      I really want you to describe how a 1975 TV works without a third-party tuner when receiving digital TV broadcasts.

      Hint: It doesn't. When analog TV broadcasts were shut off in 2009, that 1975 TV started needing a "converter", which is just a third-party tuner (some low power stations could keep broadcasting in analog until 2015, but that's still in the past).

      Yes, ATSC 3 could mean yet another 3rd party tuner, but this isn't the first time this has come up.

  13. PBS made a big mistake by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Over the past few years, most PBS stations have sold off their broadcast licenses. You read that right, they no longer have a right to broadcast on the air. How are you still seeing them with your antenna? The PBS stations are renting sub-channels from commercial broadcasters. The way HDTV channels work, you can't tell by the channel number. But the result is that they can't broadcast with the bandwidth (resolution) they had before, and they can't broadcast all of the sub-channels they had before.

    If you have cable, PBS stations can provide their full bandwidth to the cable head-end. But they no longer own that bandwidth to use over the air.

    TV stations sell their licenses to make money. The mind boggles.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:PBS made a big mistake by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      The one PBS channel here seems to run thinly veiled sponsored content. Right now *Food: What The Heck Should I Eat?* is playing.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:PBS made a big mistake by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      If only PBS hadn't pissed its credibility away supporting far left political causes instead of representing the American people as it was charged to do, we might care. As it is, who watches PBS anymore but their tiny base? A few decades ago, they stood for all of us. No more. It's so sad. They once were warriors.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:PBS made a big mistake by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is false. I have no idea where this is coming from. There are about 20 PBS stations that sold spectrum in the 2016-2017 auction the FCC held to channel share, and considering there are hundreds of PBS stations out there, it's certainly not "most." And among those, most are not "renting" from commercial licensees.

      The complete list of such stations and what they're doing follows:

      KOCE Los Angeles, CA - shares on KSCI (commercial; no programming was lost)
      KLCS Los Angeles, CA - shares on KCET (non-commercial)
      KQEH San Jose, CA - shares on KQED (its PBS sister station, which was already airing its programming)
      WEDY New Haven, CT - shares on WEDH (its PBS sister station, of which it was a 100% simulcast)
      WXEL West Palm Beach, FL - shares on WPBT (its PBS sister station)
      WUSF Tampa, FL - shares on PBS WEDU and sold the license to them
      WYCC Chicago, IL - shares on PBS WTTW and sold the license to them
      WCMZ Flint, MI - went off the air entirely; PBS remains on WTVS/WDCQ
      WNJN Montclair, NJ - shares on WNJB (its PBS sister station, of which it was a 100% simulcast; no programming was lost)
      WNJT Trenton, NJ - shares on WNJS (its PBS sister station, of which it was a 100% simulcast; no programming was lost)
      WPBO Portsmouth, OH - went off the air entirely; PBS remains on WOSU/WKAS/etc.
      WLVT Allentown, PA - shares on WBPH (commercial; no programming was lost)
      WYBE Philadelphia, PA - shares on WBPH (commercial) and sold the license to WLVT
      WVIA Scranton, PA - shares on WNEP (commercial; no programming was lost)
      WRET Spartanburg, SC - shares on WNTV (its PBS sister station, of which it was a 100% simulcast; no programming was lost)
      WVPY Front Royal, VA - shares on WVPT (its PBS sister station)
      WMSY Marion, VA - station was already off the air for financial reasons
      WSBN Norton, VA - station was already off the air for financial reasons
      WVTA Windsor, VT - station will share on WVER, its PBS sister station of which it is a 100% simulcast, and will refill lost coverage with booster signals that are being built right now
      WMVT Milwaukee, WI - shares on WMVS (its PBS sister station)

      The vast majority of the above did not have any change in resolution. To the extent there's a change in bandwidth, newer encoders have better performance, and you cannot measure picture quality from bandwidth alone.

    4. Re:PBS made a big mistake by chipperdog · · Score: 2

      A FEW have given up their licences for payment by the Telcos during the current TV repack ... Definitely not most...

    5. Re:PBS made a big mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WYBE in Philadelphia's programming got moved to other PBS stations, except for RT because Muh Russia.

    6. Re:PBS made a big mistake by PPH · · Score: 1

      This.

      Or selling investment advice packages, oldies music CD collections, yoga for geezers or Deepak Chopra selling his crap.

      A year or two ago, our PBS station had a Spanish language kids sub-channel. It appeared to have lots of science and technology programming. The English language kids channel features a purple dinosaur. I guess we know where our future STEM employees are coming from.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:PBS made a big mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WUSF Tampa, FL - shares on PBS WEDU and sold the license to them"

      WUSF isnt even a PBS station. It is a college station for the University of South Florida. WEDU is the PBS station in Tampa.

      AFAIK WUSF doesn't broadcast period any longer on their own transmitter or leased sub channel. They shut down the college station a year or two ago.

    8. Re:PBS made a big mistake by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Mr. Rogers was a Republican. Try reading a book sometime, you might learn something, "comrade".

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:PBS made a big mistake by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Mr. Rogers was a single personality who retired decades ago. PBS today no longer represents anyone but the Left and increasingly the far left. Your knowledge of America is far outdated, Ivan. Nice try though.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  14. Content by albeit+unknown · · Score: 1

    We've got three quality and fairly orthogonal PBS channels plus PBS Kids.

    Lots of oldies and rerun channels like Antenna, MeTV, Movies, Buzzr...

    You have to go with premium cable to get a better selection.

  15. Analog by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Do they still actually have analog TV signals in the US? That would be the interesting story.

    1. Re: Analog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No.

    2. Re:Analog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      uh no? and it's not interesting because it's a simple answer to a stupid question.

    3. Re:Analog by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Wasnt the spectrum sold by fcc for something else? I can't remember.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:Analog by JayTech · · Score: 1

      Actually, several of the major US cable companies recently phased out analog signals from their networks. That alone is probably driving a percentage of the antenna sales given the increased cost of connecting additional TVs. Plus, there's no more "free cable" loophole for internet subscribers. I'm sure there's probably a few smaller cable companies out there still running analog signals.

    5. Re:Analog by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Do they still actually have analog TV signals in the US? That would be the interesting story.

      Supposedly, there are some low-power stations. They may yet change things again, but you're right - this was interesting to find out.

    6. Re: Analog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Not many, and they are low power, but they exist. (I receive one OTA that is some sort of Home Shopping Network-type thing. Not worth watching, but somebody somewhere thinks it's worth transmitting.)

      FWIW, I have a big Winegard in the attic, aimed toward the nearby (~40 miles away) big city, and get a full selection of anything I want to watch. Better picture quality than my neighbors w/ FiOS or cable. And over the years I have saved a fortune.

    7. Re:Analog by chipperdog · · Score: 2

      There are no "full power" analog tv stations in the USA. They all ended in 2009. Many tried to extend analog operation, but were told by the FCC to either convert to digital or go off the air. There are quite a few LPTV (low power TV) and translator (picks up a distant signal and re-transmits it with low power) that are still in analog...The deadline for them to move keeps changing, originally it was 2012 IIRC, but now looking like 2020 or beyond. A big push to keep analog LPTV operations are the franken-FMs, analog LPTV stations that run on channel 6, who's FM audio carrier is on 87.7 Mhz at the low end of the FM band that can be tuned in by most receivers.

  16. I think this has less to do with churn by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and more to do with a soft economic situation combined with rising cable tv costs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think this has less to do with churn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is out of Minneapolis.

      My parents live there. Their cable bills have been trending upwards, pretty much every month. And they're not alone. So, since there are a LOT of broadcast channels available in Minneapolis / St Paul, they're looking at an antenna for the local stuff (including their beloved Vikings games) and a Roku box for everything else. No point paying $200+ for cable (no, that's not an exaggeration) when they can watch some stuff for free and other stuff can stream on-demand.

  17. Re:does broadcast-only include people with interne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zing!

  18. Re:does broadcast-only include people with interne by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Virtual +1 BURN!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  19. Re:does broadcast-only include people with interne by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    I'd bet a lot of sports too.

    Since (non basketball) sports are usually on broadcast, and have lower time shift value than other content. Other stuff you can be on the Netflix schedule with your peer group, or Hulu and only be a day behind for a lot of stuff.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  20. My parents have one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to admit, it's a lot better than the old antenna TV we all grew up with. I hate TV, and it's totally obsolete, but the digital antenna thing is pretty cool. Still, the internet and digital distribution is better in every meaningful way, and it's the future.

    1. Re:My parents have one. by ledow · · Score: 2

      I'd much rather ditch all broadcast TV and push people towards IP services, personally.

      Because once you have a decent line for IP transit (however that may happen), everything can be pushed down it - Internet, telephony, video-on-demand, etc.

      We need to wake up and realise that IP is a standard that you can use for almost any kind of data distribution in an efficient manner, especially with multicast / broadcast being used properly.

      Give people reliable IP, all those old services will be absorbed and made more efficient. And then you free up a ton of spectrum from broadcast systems that you can use for other things (in the UK, digital was used to "free up" analogue channels for use by 3G... supposedly. But free up both and you can just add them into one giant spread-spectrum, frequency-hopping bunch and improve things like Wifi and cellular access).

      My house is entirely "IP". Over 4G no less. No phone, no broadband line, no alarm line, no CCTV cables, no TV connection (despite having satellite on the roof, antenna in the loft, etc.), etc. etc. And my workplace is basically the same now - we cut all the analogue and ISDN phone lines, we changed all the internal phones to IP, we put everything from CCTV to wireless to tannoy/bell systems to access control onto IP / PoE. It's just so much simpler and connecting to any part of the infrastructure means you have potential access to anything and everything that's IP'd (VLAN and permissions not withstanding).

    2. Re:My parents have one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The designs may have become more compact, but an antenna is an antenna. There is no such thing as a "digital" antenna.

    3. Re:My parents have one. by chipperdog · · Score: 1

      You would ditch traditional "free" radio reception to force everyone to pay for IP connectivity from one of the major telcons (yes CON as in con-artist)?

    4. Re:My parents have one. by ledow · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      I'd ditch the advert-funded radio that nobody listens to any more to fund a huge spread-spectrum auction benefitting the taxpayer directly (to the tune of billions of pounds if the 3G/4G/5G auctions are anything to go buy), while carving out several more "unlicenced" areas of spread spectrum that could be used to provide mesh wireless and other services.

      I'd also attached to the provisions of the spectrum use that they must cover X percent of the country in their cellular/IP coverage, including at least 10% of current locations that have no notable Internet infrastructure.

      Thus we'd get money, cellular coverage, good guaranteed minimum broadband speeds in all areas eventually, better Internet speeds and coverage, pay-for Internet like we do now but potentially millions of free radio stations with no need to maintain broadcasting infrastructure for radio that could be better used for cellular, faster wifi and potential for free mesh networking.

      That you think you're NOT paying for the current radio infrastructure is telling that you don't understand that sometimes you have to PAY for the infrastructure to provide the benefits (whether through tax, advertising, subsidies, etc.). You may not pay the radio stations anything, but they're using your money, aren't they?

    5. Re:My parents have one. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Because once you have a decent line for IP transit (however that may happen), everything can be pushed down it - Internet, telephony, video-on-demand, etc.

      If you have a 20Mbps TV channel and you replace it with Multicast IP transit, then that same channel will still use up 20Mbps but with TCP/IP overhead on top of that. And that's a best case scenario.

    6. Re:My parents have one. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      IP is not suitable for emergency broadcasts because of low reliability. Even satellite broadcasts are questionable in heavy weather but without local OTA, they would not carry local emergency broadcasts anyway.

      So there is a reason to keep OTA broadcast stations for both television and radio around but it may not be enough. Who needs weather alerts and emergency broadcasts anyway?

  21. Have we missed something? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    Obviously, these people have cut the cord. I would think that most of them have cut the cord in favor of over-the-internet streamed media and are supplementing with over-the-air TV. But, is seems unlikely that this 20% is purely a combination of those who never went to cable or satellite and those who have already cut the cord and are choosing to supplement with over-the-air TV. Many cord cutters are either not supplementing (as is my case) or are supplementing using the new cable-over-internet operations like Sling, Youtube TV, etc.

    Is it possible that a significant number of cord cutters have simply decided that even internet alone is too expensive and have reverted to over-the-air TV sans internet?

    If the number reverting to the 1970s mode of watching TV without any streaming is significant, it moves the balance of the reason for cord cutting. It makes it less internet streaming attracted people away and more cable cost drove people away.

    1. Re:Have we missed something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We cut the cord and supplement OTA with Netflix, not Netflix with OTA.

    2. Re:Have we missed something? by Kalendraf · · Score: 1

      For us it was purely price. We don't subscribe to any streaming services (now or ever). Our primary viewing is major networks, especially for local news broadcasts, and some sports, along with PBS for the kids. We're also big believers in 1-time purchases vs. any form of monthly fees or contracts. I don't see how any service with a monthly fee can realistically compete against our one-time antenna purchase (under $50) that gives us 30+ channels per month for free which includes all the major networks we want to watch.

    3. Re:Have we missed something? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      lol. We have an interesting point in common though a different approach I guess. My 2 y/o loves PBS Kids but watches it either on her own via the PBS Kids app on her Fire for Kids tablet or via Chromecast on the TV. She also loves all of the PBS Kids games on her tablet.

      As for TV, I cut the cord due to a combination that the programming is no longer worth paying for and because I felt there was nothing on TV worth exposing myself to even one more television ad. I guess I could Tivo the live TV, but I really don't want to even glimpse an ad long enough to hit the fast forward.

    4. Re:Have we missed something? by Kalendraf · · Score: 1

      We have two kids and 2 amazon kindles loaded with a bunch of free kids stuff including PBS Kids apps. However, the kids still prefer to watch most of the shows directly on the big screen TV. We also have 2 TiVos (SD series 2 still kicking with a digital OTA converter box I got for free, and a HD Roamio OTA). Both have lifetime subscriptions that have more than paid for themselves several times over.

    5. Re:Have we missed something? by enjar · · Score: 1

      We cut cable TV and switched to OTA+streaming because 1) the overall cost was lower, freeing up money for other things 2) streaming services are month-to-month, no lengthy contracts 3) we have two fully paid for TiVos that happily consume OTA and work as streaming devices 4) the hundreds of channels of content on cable tv are increasing filled with crappy, low budget reality content. If I want that, I can get it from YouTube 5) we have the good fortune to live in a town with a community not-for-profit ISP, so getting only Internet isn't a big problem.

      I was surprised to find out how much content we were getting from OTA channels, and how little I missed the rest of the cable package. We did split a HBO Go subscription with a family member for a while, but then switched to HBO Now when we could, and we switch that on and off when GoT is showing. We also started using our local library for DVDs/Blu-Rays of recent movies. We end up going past our library about twice a day so it's never really out of the way, and can request movies via interlibrary loan, so it's not a time waster. We can also know if something we want to watch is available via the library website.

    6. Re:Have we missed something? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Same. OTA meets most of my needs, and I fill in a little with Netflix/streaming options. Who needs more TV than that? It's already too much content.

  22. Like Most, Not Really To Do With Churn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Digital over air requires much more antenna requirements than the previous non-digital TV transmissions. Just means folks are upgrading their antenna. Heck I've gone through 3 trying to find the right one that really does a good job of bringing in the signal without littering the rooftop with a monstrosity of an eyesore. :(

    1. Re:Like Most, Not Really To Do With Churn by Kalendraf · · Score: 1

      Yes and No. It's highly dependent on where you live. I'm fortunate to live in a 2-story home with vinyl siding which is located in a relatively flat area within 30 miles of multiple towers with no obstructions. I can easily pull all of those in plus a few farther away with an inexpensive flat indoor antenna. It took me all of 5 minutes to find a spot to place it in an upstairs room, and then run the signal back to the main junction to split it out to the 3 TVs in our house. Ever since putting it up a few years ago, it has continued to pull 30+ channels flawlessly.

      Those living in other ares may not be so fortunate. For example, my parents 1 story house is blocked by multiple 3-story apartments nearby, and they're unable to receive any signal using an indoor antenna at all despite the nearest towers being just over 30 miles. At their previous house just a few miles away, they could get those stations with a small roof-mounted antenna, but they'd need a huge tower to clear the nearby apartments for their current residence.

      It's usually an afterthought, but when buying a house, the OTA maps should definitely be a factor. Considering you might live there for many years, being able to save $100+ per month by using an antenna instead of paying for cable or dish, that can add up to a significant savings over time.

    2. Re:Like Most, Not Really To Do With Churn by chipperdog · · Score: 1

      RF is RF....As long as you have an antenna appropriate for the frequency being used, it doesn't matter what is carried on it. Keep in mind the advertised channel numbers are virtual, you have to look at the RF channel number to determine what antenna is needed. In the 2009 conversion, many VHF broadcasters moved to UHF and some UHF went to VHF (most had to transmit two signals for awhile, so it had to do with what spectrum was available - most stations just kept their digital signal where it was when they turned off the analog transmitter) and some changed sites during the process, so your antenna system from 1955 might no longer be appropriate. We are also in the middle of a TV repack where many stations are moving RF channels again. Everything above channel 36 is being given to the telcos. Check out sites like rabbitears.info and antennaweb.org to see what is appropriate.

  23. Digital antenna? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the ads I used to see for antennas for color TV reception. No ordinary black and white antenna would work for color TV!

    1. Re:Digital antenna? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the ads I used to see for antennas for color TV reception. No ordinary black and white antenna would work for color TV!

      It's generally UHF now. An older UHF antenna may be fine, though you really need to look at your actual channel frequencies and try to match the antenna to them, at least if your going all out. I believe this is the site I used last time I investigated. link The real channels in my area (i.e. the old numbers) start at technically 13, though 14 is likely the first available. Those channels may of course send several programs. Previously vhf was starting with 2...

  24. Provide a link? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Please provide a link to a good antenna design.

    1. Re:Provide a link? by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      Not intended as a snarky reply, but please do a search for "gray-hoverman antenna". You should be able to find a variety of designs; indoor, outdoor, with or without reflector, and multi-bay designs.

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  25. Minneapolis/St.Paul market is an outlier.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Historically (as in, dating all the way back to the introduction of cable television service itself), the Twin Cities (the MSP market covers most of the state) has low cable (and satellite) market penetration.

    The metro area receives very good signals locally, there's a number of smaller markets both in-state and in border regions, there's a wide network of translator stations, and portions of the state have unique OTA rebroadcasters (e.g. Selective TV, UHF TV Inc.).

    1. Re:Minneapolis/St.Paul market is an outlier.. by Kalendraf · · Score: 1

      It's true that the Twin Cities metro area is somewhat unique for OTA broadcasting. However, there are several parts of the state that are not able to easily view TC channels, so it's not accurate to say that the MSP market covers most of the state, not by a long shot!. In those areas, both cable and satellite have strong market penetration.

      Some examples:
      Duluth - Gets about 4 to 5 good stations, but non are from the Twin Cities. Terrain and distance is definitely a factor

      Rochester - Gets about 4 to 5 good stations, but none are from the Twin Cities. Rochester's terrain is essentially a large bowl, and it really limits their ability to pull in anything from the TC metro areas to the northwest.

      Mankato - due to the river valley terrain, large parts of this city can't pull in anything beyond the local station KEYC. Even the eastern hilltop area is a virtual OTA wasteland without a pretty tall antenna. Cable and satellite are the preferred options for many residents there. For kicks, try punching in zipcode 56001 into the dtvmaps website. It's not a mistake that it returns 0 stations. There are areas where you can't even pull in KEYC!

      There are several more outstate examples in the southwest, west, and north areas of MN that are unable to view TC stations. Those cover the TC metro, but not much beyond it.

    2. Re:Minneapolis/St.Paul market is an outlier.. by chipperdog · · Score: 1

      Also remember Fargo and Sioux Falls markets cover parts of MN also, in Fargo's case, almost the full NW quarter of MN... In addition there are MANY translators (low power stations that retransmit distant signals) in rural MN communities..For example a translator coop in Alexandria offers more channels than most get in the Twin Cities. There is a similar setup in Wilmar and Walker. Bemidji has a few independently run translators, Roseau and Baudette have county run translators to bring broadcast TV to the areas.

    3. Re:Minneapolis/St.Paul market is an outlier.. by chipperdog · · Score: 1

      Mankato is one of those weird arrangements. It's considered it's own market, but only has one full power TV station and not much else, mainly relying on signals from Twin Cities or Rochester/Mason City market to fill the gap....If you can find LPTV CPs for your area, you could start a system similar to Selective TV in Alexandria.

  26. My only regret about cutting the cord is that... by Kalendraf · · Score: 2

    ...I didn't do it sooner!

    I started out using cable, but our local provider had terrible signal and service. We experienced complete loss of signal out anytime it rained, go figure. Calling their service line would usually take over an hour of waiting to reach a human, Due to all the problems in our area, their repair teams are spread so thin that they can't arrive for at least a full week after a service call by which point the problem would gone so they can't ever find the root cause to fix it. This entire neighborhood, and adjacent ones had the same issue and the repair guys were completely clueless as to how to fix it which is why everyone moved to satellite or antenna. We opted for satellite and initially liked the service, but the costs kept creeping up until it was well over $100 per month with no premium channels.

    After checking the OTA coverage in my area with various sites (tvfool.com, antennaweb.org, dtvmaps), I was surprised that we could probably receive broadcasts from at least nearby towers with over 30 channels of programming, much of it in HD. I bought a up a small, flat rectangular indoor antenna for under $50 that has an amp and was supposed to have a 50 mile range, and it pulled in all of them plus a few more. We now get 33 channels, and 11 of them are in HD. Best of all, it's all the major networks and PBS that comprised over 90% of our regular viewing.

    So for less than half the monthly cost of the dish, our 1 time antenna purchase allows us to watch the same major networks. Whenever I tell people about this, they are usually shocked, but after investigating it, several have since made the switch themselves. As the word continues to spread, I would expect more and more to cut the cord and make the switch.

  27. "Sign of Churn In TV Watching"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi,
      I'm not a native english speaker, but isn't churn supposed to mean reduction in something?
    According to the summary, the antenna installers say that "business has been rising about 20 percent to 25 percent annually for several years".
    I read that as an increase in TV watching, instead of reduction...

    1. Re:"Sign of Churn In TV Watching"? by Kalendraf · · Score: 2

      "Churn" equates to "change" or "fluctuation" and it doesn't have any associated upward or downward velocity. In fact, a common phrase is "steady churn" which essentially means constant change or continual fluctuation.

      In this phrase "Sign of Churn In TV Watching", it means is that there's still a continual change affecting how people are watching TV. Historically, the changes been::
      - OTA viewing being displaced (and almost fully replaced in many areas) by cable TV broadcast
      - Cable TV viewing being displaced somewhat by satellite
      - Both Cable and satellite TV viewing being displaced by online streaming services
      - Now it appears that cable and satellite are also being displaced by a significant number of people returning to OTA TV viewing.

    2. Re:"Sign of Churn In TV Watching"? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't churn supposed to mean reduction in something?

      No. If you actually looked up the definition / etymology of the word you would see that churn is a machine or container in which butter is made by agitating milk or cream.

      e.g. Butter Churn

      i.e. If 5% cut the cord but a different 5% start their cable subscription then the total number of current subscribers hasn't changed. Churn is just another name for cyclical movement.

      The cable industry with its subscribers, for the most part (*), has been holding steady for the past 20 years. i.e. Steady churn.

      (*) Roughly 2%

  28. Re:does broadcast-only include people with interne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't watched cable or satellite for a very very long time, probably over 10 years.
    No kidding.

    I have an HDTV antenna, and i've used it to check local news for weather alert updates... but that's it.
    I don't watch sports, mostly watch youtube(premium) or hulu(premium)... once in a while netflix (mostly for 4k).

    Between that and adblock ( although most sites make you disable it now )... I rarely see ads.
    The only thing I miss out on is the "news"... but it's all so skewed. Both sides are just propaganda... I don't miss it.

  29. Capture the flag by stooo · · Score: 1

    >> an effective "broadcast flag"
    Cool, a "capture the flag" contest coming soon, how nice that they entertain the hackers as much as the general public with nice easter eggs.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  30. Is coverage increasing? by swillden · · Score: 1

    One of the unfortunate effects of the switch from analog to digital TV in hilly/mountainous areas is that lots of areas that had analog coverage have no digital coverage. My home is in such an area. If coverage were improved, I'd put up an antenna. Perhaps this is happening in other places and driving antenna sales?

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  31. Going the other way here by Going_Digital · · Score: 2

    Here in the UK things are going the other way, almost every household had an antenna (or aerial as we call them). Very few people had any kind of cable, although sky satellite became quite popular in the 90s. It was only with the introduction of broadband that cable started to get more popular, but still a majority get their broadband over some kind of DSL. Now there is a growing movement away from broadcast, people are now choosing what they want to watch and when they want to watch it, using on-line services.

    1. Re:Going the other way here by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK things are going the other way, almost every household had an antenna (or aerial as we call them). Very few people had any kind of cable, although sky satellite became quite popular in the 90s. It was only with the introduction of broadband that cable started to get more popular, but still a majority get their broadband over some kind of DSL. Now there is a growing movement away from broadcast, people are now choosing what they want to watch and when they want to watch it, using on-line services.

      Yep,

      A lot of landlords advertise that they have Virgin Media or Sky packages, but some are starting to get rid of them as they're just an extra cost most people done use and in some cases, replaced them with Netflix.

      Even the BBC is going online for a lot of content. I haven't used a TV in over 8 months and get my HIGNFY and UC fixes via the iplayer.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Going the other way here by houghi · · Score: 1

      In Belgium most have cable TV. Cable providers also will have Internet. Some people (mostly non-Belgians*) will have satelite, because then they have plenty of shows in their language. Now there are also Internet providers that provide TV stations.

      One trick to do is to say to your cable provider. People on the phone are trained to do retention, so you are in a great negotiation position. That does not mean cheaper cable, it can mean a year of free cable. And then you just call them again next year, if you do not mind being a cheat.

      I do not have any TV as I do not care for it. I also do not pay the phone company directly. Last mile DSL I pay to my provider.

      As an extra, I pay now 35 EUR for 100/40 https://www.edpnet.be/en/home/... and by looking at it I am reminded taht I have a fixed number. Cmpletely forgot about that. No idea what it is and I do not even have a fixed phone since 10 years or so.

      And to be honest, it is plenty fast. I download faster via torrent than I can watch a HD movie or TV show.

      (*) Yes, this includes Arab stations, but also what you will see in e.g. ther Irish Pub where they will have the Hurling(**) on TV. Second best sport (after Autralian Rules Footbal)
      (**) Hurling is where they thought "Rugby is nice, but why not give them a stick?"

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  32. Analog frequencies now with 4G and 5G services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Uk and most of Europe there are not Analog signal.
    Everything Digital
    And in the Analog Frequencies now there are services as 4G and 5G

  33. News is worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get everything they spout in 30m minutes on a google perusal within 30 seconds, and then a quick looksie at the local paper online.

  34. TV Spectrum will be Gone in 10 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy your OTA DTV while it lasts. At the rate the FCC is doing reverse auctions to reclaim spectrum to give it to the cellular carriers, there will be no more OTA TV of any kind in about 10 years time.

    You will pay for TV, citizen. It will be good for you.

  35. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A digital TV antenna is resonant across the frequencies of transmission of digital TV. It decodes nothing.

  36. What kind of channels by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    I had a go at this, and I could get about 25 channels. But they were all garbage - mostly preachers and soaps. I'd pay not to have to watch that trash.

    1. Re:What kind of channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a go at this, and I could get about 25 channels. But they were all garbage - mostly preachers and soaps. I'd pay not to have to watch that trash.

      What some people call garbage, other people call treasure.

  37. Alternative by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    At least where I am, the library has an amazing collection of material on bluray/dvd.

    Have to wait a little for just-released stuff, but if you are interested in golden oldie genres like Noir, the choice is there.

    And no surveillance of your behavior... OTA TV wins there too.

  38. Not here. 3 PBS stations with subchannels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In metro Atlanta, there are 3 separate PBS broadcasters. They all broadcast the main channel in beautiful 1080i HD.

    PBA 30.1 All HD, Always
    GPB 8.1 - 8.4 HD +3 subchannels (VHF broadcast_
    and a repeater near Rome, GA wngh 18.1-18.3 that is similar to 8.1.

    PBA and GPB carry different programs with a little overlap, but not for any that we watch.

    Also, there is no such thing as a "digital antenna" - there are just antennas. The antenna doesn't give a crap about analog or digital signalling.

    There are digital tuners.

    And to the people asking for recommendations about antennas. Without your exact address or GPS coordinates and the altitude where the antenna will be placed (higher is almost always better), nobody can help except your neighbors - more than a few house away and the data will be off too much to be useful. Visit tvfool.com to get a reasonable idea for which stations/channels you might get. Other sites are extremely pessimistic - I think they are run by the cable providers and think you will put a simple bow-tie antenna in a sub-basement corner.

    1. Re:Not here. 3 PBS stations with subchannels by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      In Seattle and Tacoma (which you can pick up in Seattle) they broadcast in 1080p and also carry 720p and 360p other language channels.

      You can get most sports games - pick up the Spanish language channel, turn on the screen captions with Second Language set to English, turn on SAP audio (which is English). Plus, they're way more fun!

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  39. Over the air 4K... when? by supremebob · · Score: 1

    I was going to ask when 4K signals will be available OTA, but I think that the answer will likely be "never".

    The broadcasters will probably keep those behind a paywall that requires you to have 50 Mbps or better broadband to access. So, if you don't have cable internet, a fiber connection, or are planning on getting a 5G wireless connection when they become more available... you're stuck with 1080i or 720p.

    1. Re:Over the air 4K... when? by DethLok · · Score: 1

      I get 4K Youtube over 25mbs fixed wireless.

  40. I think I don't pay for radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may not pay the radio stations anything, but they're using your money, aren't they?

    This is a really interesting point, but nevertheless I am getting the impression that I'm not paying.

    I sometimes listen to FM radio in the car (usually when my bluetooth tape adapter is charging, which it can't do while I'm using it -- my car equipment is awful but let's not get into that!) and, of course, the most striking thing about it, are the ads. Listening to the radio is all about hearing ads, occasionally broken up by some the usual songs.

    The ads are .. special. Not special in that they're among the few ads I experience in my otherwise nearly-ad-free life, but special in that, I swear, every business that advertises on the radio is at least a little bit shady. It's all male enhancement pills! Well, not all. Some of it is get-rich-quick schemes. A few old-people rock concerts (but this is on a "classic rock" radio station, but I guess that's to be expected), usually for bands that weren't even all that good back in the day.

    The "mainstream"iest stuff are two types of businesses: 1) cars 2) Comcast. OMG, if you buy a car from a dealer, you are paying for a lot of advertising! (I think there's actually more of these ads than dick pill ads.)

    Well, I'm driving a car from 1999 (see my above audio troubles), so I'm not paying for that. And now that I think of it, I'm not a Comcast customer either (in spite of their ads constantly going on about how much faster my wifi will be (WTF?) if I get Comcast). Perhaps I should take the dick pills, but I don't. (Sorry, wife.) Perhaps if I took the house-flipping class, I could afford a newer car, but I don't.

    I've actually thought about this quite a bit. I've been paying attention to who is advertising on my classic rock radio station. And no, I haven't been paying for it. Seriously. This shit is free (to me). Alas, it's shit.

    But somebody is paying a FUCKTON for radio. And I know who. Comcast customers. People who buy from car dealers. People who are learning how to get rick quick! (It takes money to make money, I guess.) Guys who are growing enormous dicks. People who go see Godsmack. (In spite of the fact that Godsmack does not, and never has, rocked.) Etc.

    Radio ads aren't really all that different than the subject lines I'm seeing in my spam folder, except without as much sex scams. But they make up for that: Comcast is the "I want to fuck you" sex scam spam of radio.

  41. Digital antenna? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Digital antenna? Excuse me? What exactly is a digital antenna? Moooooooorons.

  42. I love OTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About a year ago picked up OTA HDHR from best buy. Then just for grins dug a foldable twinlead antenna out of an old box of crap along with 75ohm transformer.

    Manages to pick up 24 channels not counting religious and shopping. Was not expecting anything even close to that.

    Installed some DVR software on a Linux box. Software automatically pulls in EPG data OTA as well.

    Fucking amazing. A nice little web page where anyone can see what's playing set things to record easily, download recorded shows... or do the same from Kodi from TV which seamlessly integrates with DVR.

    Then a month later ditched cable. Had no idea how good OTA was. Feel really stupid paying for cable for as long as we did. 95% of the shit watched was something broadcast OTA.

    Also the fact that not only is reception free but the whole stack front end and backend (tvheadend,Kodi,CoreELEC..etc) except HDHR is open source is amazing. Having TV that just works without all malware and recurring fees for crap you don't need like guide data subscriptions that allows me complete freedom to serve content from anywhere is fucking cool. Perhaps a little more involved to be realistic for people who have better things to do than sit in front of a computer all day but I appreciate it.

    Can't wait for ATSC3.. Cost of replacing HDHR with a new model that will last years will cost months cost of cable service. Bandwidth is more than doubled and h265 vs h262 is what? at least a factor of four on top of that. It's going to be awesome.

  43. Re: Good news for my little Android app about ante by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Took down the Directv dish, mounted my $35 outdoor antenna on the dish pole using the same cabling; and used this exact app to point my antenna in the right direction. Got two tv's connected and dual tuner PCI card + 3rd tuner on HDstick with Media Center + remote. VideoRedo + VAP + comskip for DVR autoskip. Thank you SOOOOOOOOOO much!

  44. Re: Good news for my little Android app about ant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...also RemotePotato server/Remote Media Center app for scheduling and streaming to other devices. MyChannelLogos for fixing the ugly WMC guide. MyRemote for WMC remote on droid. MCCoverter for quick video conversion.

  45. I'd love to get digital OTA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have all of the necessary equipment but I live just outside of range of the signals. If only analog signals were still a thing. Or Aereo. Thanks to a bunch of idiots on the Supreme Court, I can't even legally have someone rebroadcast digital OTA over their home Internet connection.

  46. digital antenna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    digital antenna

    there is no such thing

  47. Most are crap by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Most antennas you can find in the local box stores are crap. They are certainly not worth the money if you have the know-how and resources to build them.

  48. 1080p HDTV antenna or 1080i cable by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Lower resolution signals over cable or higher resolution for free over the air with a $40 HDTV antenna that picks up more than 100 channels.

    Easy choice.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  49. I wouldn't think it work... by Doctrinsograce · · Score: 1

    Using an antenna to support a sale doesn't sound likely that you'd be able to raise it even once, you know?