Slashdot Mirror
Antenna Sales Are Rising, In Another Sign of Churn In TV Watching (startribune.com)
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.
You can check the DTV signals that are available at your location here.
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)
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.
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.
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.
It surprises me. Local news is a cesspool of local criminal influence where I live.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
Do they still actually have analog TV signals in the US? That would be the interesting story.
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/
Virtual +1 BURN!
#DeleteFacebook
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
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.
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!
Please provide a link to a good antenna design.
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.).
...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.
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.
"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.
> 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%
>> 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
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).
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.
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.
The designs may have become more compact, but an antenna is an antenna. There is no such thing as a "digital" antenna.
A digital TV antenna is resonant across the frequencies of transmission of digital TV. It decodes nothing.
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.
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)?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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! --
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! --
Using an antenna to support a sale doesn't sound likely that you'd be able to raise it even once, you know?