# Tivo should go after the OTA market (but first understand those customers)



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

I used to have cable, but now just watch over-the-air and streaming channels. I cut the cord because of a combination of:

- Cable cost
- Hassles getting Tivo/CableCard/TA to work
- Increased streaming viewing

I have a HD Tivo with lifetime that I use for OTA and it's awesome at that. However, my actual need for a OTA DVR is not that great. I get the networks and a bunch of junk channels, but there's not a whole lot OTA that I'm really interested in watching. If the Tivo died, I don't know that I would get another one. The cost of the box + service would be pretty high for the amount of utility I would get out of it. There are $35 DVR's on amazon which are basically glorified VCRs, but that would be fine for the amount of OTA I watch.

I've seen that Tivo does have some OTA-only models, but they don't really seem to be designed for the OTA customer. They seem to be designed for the Tivo enthusiast who loves Tivo and is willing to pay the higher price. For Tivo to be viable in the OTA market, I think they would need:

- A lower-cost box (smaller disk/no streaming)
- Much lower cost service ($5 or less per month)
- No service option where it acts like a VCR (time/channel record only)
- (optionally) multiple antenna inputs
- On-screen notification when bad signal prevents a Season Pass show from recording.


You can successfully argue that Tivo is the best and should command a premium, but the OTA customer doesn't need a premium DVR. The cable customer with hundreds of channels needs a good DVR, but the OTA customer records fewer shows and a lower-quality DVR will likely be fine. The OTA customer may be using services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc for watching TV, so they likely have other ways other than OTA for many shows. 

In my case, I use OTA for late-night talk shows and local news and a couple of network shows. The rest I'm watching from streaming channels.

The low-cost OTA Tivo probably wouldn't need streaming. The OTA customer is going to rely more heavily on streaming services, so they want a premium product for that (Roku, Amazon, Apple). I prefer to use my Roku over Tivo because the UI is better and 99.9999999999% of the streaming channels are available on Roku. Even if the OTA Tivo had streaming, the OTA customer probably wouldn't use it because they likely have a dedicated streaming box.

I wouldn't recommend Tivo for most OTA customers. The high price means that they would really have to love it for the small amount of shows they'd use it for. For most people, I don't think they would really see the value of the box price and $15/mo. But if instead the box was $200 and $5/mo for service (or $0 for VCR-like), I could see a lot of people getting that solution. And then once they've used Tivo for a while, they'd be more likely to look for a Tivo solution if they ever went back to cable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think you're in the minority when it comes to not watching network TV. Even for cable customers network TV makes up a majority of content consumed. If you want a streaming only device buy a Roku or FireTV, they're under $100 and require no monthly fee. 

Now if you actually watch a lot of network TV then it works out to be relatively cheap. ~$17/mo for 3 years. In most cases you can't even get "life line" service from a cable company for that much and it certainly doesn't offer a DVR. Throw in a Netflix subscription for $9/mo and you're still at less then $30/mo for a pretty substantial amount of content. Even with an internet connection costing $60/mo you're still at about 1/2 what most people pay for cable.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'm a Roamio OTA guy, picked up one with lifetime for $300 on that secret sale last spring. It's my first-ever TiVo but I've had other various satellite & cable DVRs in the past. Since first getting it, I've hoped that TiVo could become my "one box to rule them all," smartly and conveniently combining live and recorded OTA TV with all the streaming options I want: Showtime, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO and Netflix. (CBSN would be nice too.) In some ways, my TiVo has gotten better since I bought it but, honestly, it's still lacking when it comes to streaming. Some of the apps are just buggy and clunky and, as others have often pointed out on threads here, it will likely never be as good at streaming as dedicated streaming boxes like Apple TV or Fire TV.

If I were doing it all again, at this point I _might_ just buy a Fire TV and use that for streaming commercial-free Hulu, which gives me (among other stuff) all the major OTA network content except CBS and PBS. Those two networks' shows can be streamed for free (without ads!) using the CBS and PBS channel plug-ins for Plex. I would imagine that the Amazon Video app for Fire TV is first-class, and that's where I watch stuff from Amazon Prime Video plus Showtime. (I could also add Starz to my Amazon subscription if I wanted.) Fire TV also has updated versions (I think) of the HBO NOW and HBO GO apps, plus a decent Netflix app.

At that point, the only thing I would really be missing is the ability to pause and rewind live TV, plus have a channel guide to see what's currently playing. But then I think one of those cheap $35 jobs on Amazon could provide that, with no recurring monthly fee.

Yes, I would have to switch inputs between live TV and the Fire TV for streaming but honestly, I still can't get away from switching inputs even now as I rely on my Apple TV most of the time for Hulu, plus also go to it quite a bit these days for live news from the free CBSN app (which is also available on Fire TV). And no, I wouldn't have an integrated "My TV" list of shows to watch like I do on TiVo (combining OTA recordings plus most of the shows I stream) -- but honestly, that TiVo feature is better in theory than in practice because TiVo's database is often very slow to update streaming shows with new episodes. As of yesterday, the new Hulu series 11.22.63 was still showing only the first ep available on my TiVo despite the fact that three were actually available.

There's a certain sliver of the cord-cutter market for whom TiVo makes the most sense but honestly, I think it's pretty small right now.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I use the apps on my TiVo all the time and they work great for me. I find the ability to jump in and out of the apps using a single remote much more compelling then the slight improvements in speed you get on other devices. My only major complaint is about Hulu. The app on the Bolt is great, but the one on the Roamio/Mini is terrible. If they'd just bring the new Hulu app over to the Roamio/Mini I'd be thrilled. 

In fact I find myself watching more and more shows streaming, because of TiVo, then I did before any of these apps were added to TiVo. The convenience of being able to just pop in and check out what's available without having to switch remotes or inputs just makes me more likely to do it. Plus having a Mini in every room makes it possible to watch in each room without the need to have a separate streaming device in each room too.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

I think you are letting your own preferences color what you think the general populace would like.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Me or the OP?


----------



## phughes200 (Jul 24, 2014)

I think what Tivo doesn't understand is that there are two types of customers for an OTA dvr. One is the cord cutter who has cable and compares the cost of owning a TiVo to cable. The other is a customer that doesn't have cable but wants the convenience of a dvr. The first might be happy paying a 150/year. I suspect the second doesn't feel the value of paying 150/year. 

I got the Roamio OTA with lifetime for $300 and feel it was a great value. There is no way I would pay $600 for lifetime (or $150/year) in addition to the Roamio OTA (or Bolt) cost. With that pricing, when my unit fails, I will look closely at the Channel Master DVR+ or Tablo or Magnabox. Yes, they do not have all the bells and whistles of TiVo but those features are not worth much for the OTA crowd. 

What a lot of OTA customers want is a simple DVR with a programming guide. Look at how many people brought VCRs. Right now, the TiVo seems more focused on the high end TV lover rather than the mass market. 

As I reread this, maybe TiVo does understand since they seem to be refocusing on the cable market and deemphasizing the retail market.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

warrenn said:


> For Tivo to be *viable* in the OTA market, I think they would need:
> 
> - A lower-cost box (smaller disk/no streaming)
> - Much lower cost service ($5 or less per month)


Tivo has to make money to be viable. Cut the top line by a substantial amount and Tivo would bleed a lot of red ink doing these things.



warrenn said:


> - No service option where it acts like a VCR (time/channel record only)


Can't you already do this with an old TiVo? If not, go get a VCR.


warrenn said:


> - (optionally) multiple antenna inputs


Adding a new feature will cost a lot in engineering, raising not lowering costs. Costing Tivo even more money. Just where did you go to business school?



warrenn said:


> - On-screen notification when bad signal prevents a Season Pass show from recording.


Huh? So you can go grab the rabbit ears and improve the signal? What if the TV is off?

You like many Americans want what you want at half the cost. Tivo does not make a lot of money as it is. Your suggestions would incur large losses. The OTA customer is really not a huge, profitable market.

You remind me of a couple at a Radio Shack. They were shopping for an antenna that would allow them to get Showtime and HBO without paying for it. I asked the couple why would anyone pay for HBO and Showtime if they could get it for free. They didn't want to understand, they just wanted that magic antenna.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

We cut the cord over six years ago. I purchased a TiVo almost immediately. Had it not been for TiVo allowing us to "leverage" OTA content by being able to record anything and everything that interested us, I'm nearly certain we would have gone back to cable. Initially it was a tough pill to swallow the TiVo costs but for us it has been well worth it. I feel we get a great deal of entertainment content and I like that we can easily supplement it with the built in streaming apps if desired. Despite equipment costs (TiVo, antenna, etc.) I have saved well over $4,000.00 over that time period. Most friends that see our TV and the TiVo interface assume we have cable and are amazed that we don't.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> I think you're in the minority when it comes to not watching network TV. Even for cable customers network TV makes up a majority of content consumed.


Yeah, I have always completely admitted this. Even though I have cable (and with analog TV, originally networks were in two different directions), the VAST majority of what I watch is network TV.. and most of the rest is 'basic cable' stuff. I have cheap HBO ($5/month), and that's _mostly_ only for Silicon Valley and John Oliver's show, plus an On Demand HBO movie once in a while.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

dan203 said:


> me or the op?


op


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

It is not fair to compare the cost of ownership on the new Bolt model with those of us that were lucky enough to get in on the Roamio lifetime close out deal. Sure if all you have is $300.00 in a one time investment Tivo makes sense for OTA/Cordcutters. The idea of paying never ending annual or monthly fees just goes against the logic of cordcutting to start with.
Having said that I also think the Party is almost over for Tivo in the retail market they have said loud and clear its not were they are focusing there resources anymore. Tivo will likely be around for a few more years but its an End of Line product. Enjoy it while it lasts but be prepared to move on in the future. 
I do not expect any new features not already in the works and older products will not be upgraded. Its pretty obvious to me they are fazing out of the retail business.


----------



## connie_w (Jan 10, 2015)

wow, I think the OP is way off on what OTA users want. 

I find a huge amount of OTA programming to DVR. I complain because I want more than 4 tuners and it just gripes me when someone says an ota user doesn't need more than 4 tuners. I could use 6 or more easily. 

I've used DVR so many years that I find it uncomfortable having to watch live OTA and not being able to fast forward.

And, now that we have quick mode and skip mode. My gosh, I love those features. I even DVR news programs and watch in quick mode. Shows like he Bachelor, or Biggest Loser get watched in quick mode. A few other shows that are fairly animated anyway, get watched in quick mode.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well it certainly appears that TiVo believes the market for stand alone DVRs is to small to be their primary focus. We can relist all the reasons why again and again, but it really doesn't matter, the fact is it is a small niche market. 

Another fact is TiVo (and others) have tried many things and none have worked. While I am sure there are many talented people posting here, thinking all TiVo needs to do is some list of simple things and the demand for stand alone DVRs will explode is foolish. 

Regarding OTA, if people think some company is going to develop, support, market, & manufacture some sub $2-300 DVR and it is going to do everything you want, you are living in dream land. They would need to be able to sell millions of units per year for that to happen, if it could happen at all. For those who only want an OTA DVR at those price points, it likely will only happen via close out deals or buying used, shop for those or just decide you really don't need an OTA DVR and live with a good streaming device and live OTA.


----------



## Peter G (Jan 3, 2012)

I have been OTA only for about 4 years. I started with a Premiere, when TiVo was running a promo for $10/month service for Antenna only. The idea of one box that would be a DVR with channel guide, plus allow streaming services (Netflix) was very attractive. By stopping DirecTV, I saved more than $100 per month.

TiVo offered a promotion to the Roamio, allowing me to transfer my $10/mo plan. Plus the box was about $150 I think. I upgraded because I heard the OTA tuners were better (true) and I was frustrated with the OTA experience of the Premiere.

I still have the $10 monthly plan, and am fine with it. I have several Mini's, and have basically a whole-home DVR system plus Amazon/Netflix/Hulu etc. on all screens, with one box and one remote. 

As far as I am concerned the OTA TiVo is a great low cost solution and I have more TV watching options than I can use. Add HBO Go/Now and its a slam dunk. The next TiVo for me would be an Bolt with 6 (good) OTA tuners. Otherwise I'll stick with the Roamio.

Peter G


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

If Tivo thought lowering their price would make them more money they would do it in a heartbeat. 

Giving a Tivo a smaller hard drive isn't going to reduce costs much if at all. The hard drives have a fixed costbase unlike other tech that just gets cheaper and cheaper to make.

Not including streaming services saves them next to no money because they already put these services on their cable dvrs.

Same with virtually everything else. 

If they put another antenna input on there then you would be looking at a higher pricepoint.... although I think you are right that this is needed because, in my experience, in 3 major cities, I always had 1 major network that didn't come in very good, if at all, on just 1 antenna position. It would be a very welcome addition.

I also think you are right that Tivo either has to get with the game as far as streaming options go or get out/partner with someone else. The fact is there are very cheap streaming boxes that do a better job at streaming than Tivo. 

I think if the box was state of the art in streaming combined with the great OTA dvr experience and that extra antenna input then they would have a great box and a box that consumers would be happy paying a higher price for.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Tivo needs to find a different revenue stream and lower the monthly fee for dvr service.

Partner with Sling, HBO- whatever. think outside the "box"!!

We can do it, we have the technology.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm not sure why OTA people complain so much about the price. There are really only two competitors in the market, Chanel Master and Tablo.* A Channel Master with hard drive costs $400, no service fee. A Tablo costs $300 and carries a $5/mo, $50/year or $150/lifetime setvice fee. A Roamio OTA was only $50 with a $15/mo service fee. That's roughly a 2 year break even point with those other two devices. And the Tablo also requires a 3rd party device, like a Roku, to even function because the main box is completely headless.

That being said I think if TiVo could change the price point a little they might draw in some new customers. For example if the hardware was say $150 and they offered a service fee of $8/mo, $75/year or $300/lifetime then that would be directly competitive with those other two products. The trick would be making the hardware cheap enough that they could sell it for that price and still make a profit.

Another thing that would would draw in users is if they beefed up support for streaming to 3rd party devices like the FireTV, Roku and Apple TV and/or lowered the price on the Mini so that it was cheaper to expand to a multi-room system. And adding more apps like HBO Now, Showtime, Crackle, Vimeo, etc.. would also help.

* Silicone Dust is working on a solution, but it's still in beta and is very much a DIY solution for the more geekier amoung us.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

A lot of us here are long time Tivo owners, so of course we're going to go with Tivo for OTA. But if you're not a Tivo owner already, going Tivo for OTA doesn't really make as much sense.

No one can say that Tivo doesn't have good features or that it's not one of the best DVRs. However, the utility of a premium DVR isn't necessarily as important to an OTA person. It's like recommending a Mercedes to someone who only needs a car once per week. Of course Tivo is the best DVR, but Tivo needs to truly understand the the OTA customer if they want to be in that market. I'm an owner since Series 1, but I can't see myself getting a high-priced Tivo with a high monthly fee for OTA when OTA viewing is a small part of what I watch now. When I had cable, I didn't mind the price of Tivo because it was used for 100% of my viewing. But now when it's only 10-20%, it's not as valuable.

There are too many competitors out there now. As an OTA customer, the only way for Tivo to keep me as a customer is to offer a lower-cost solution. The alternative is that I'll find another solution such as streaming-only or one of their competitors offering a $200 DVR with $5 service. My need for an OTA DVR doesn't justify a premium offering.

And with the cable DVRs getting better and the cable companies making customer-owned equipment as difficult as possible, I'm not sure how long Tivo is going to be around in that market. They have all the infrastructure already for an awesome OTA DVR that they could crush the competition. It could be OTA-only so that the cable customers still had to get the premium box. I think they need to make the choice between making a little bit of money on an OTA customer or nothing at all. I don't think marketing a premium DVR to OTA customers will be a successful strategy. There just aren't enough premium customers in that market.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

warrenn said:


> one of their competitors offering a $200 DVR with $5 service. My need for an OTA DVR doesn't justify a premium offering


No such device exists. A Tablo is the closest to that, but costs $300 not $200. The Roamio OTA is only $50. If they could lower the price of the monthly fee from $15/mo to $12/mo then the cost of a Roamio OTA would be the same as the Tablo over 3 years. (~$480) And the Channel Master with a drive costs $400, although it doesn't have any fees.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Another thing that would would draw in users is if they beefed up support for streaming to 3rd party devices like the FireTV, Roku and Apple TV and/or lowered the price on the Mini so that it was cheaper to expand to a multi-room system. And adding more apps like HBO Now, Showtime, Crackle, Vimeo, etc.. would also help.


YES, this! But frankly, I don't see it happening. As time has gone on, I've decided that HTML5 just isn't a very good platform for apps, which is why everyone always says the apps built into most smart TVs are kinda crappy -- they're HTML5. Yes, the HTML5 YouTube, Plex and HBO Go apps on my Roamio are useable but, no, they are not in the same league as apps natively designed for Apple TV, Fire TV, etc. (Maybe they're all great on Bolt? I don't know.)

Nor are those HTML5 apps in the same league as the native Netflix app specifically coded for TiVo. HTML5 apps have weird UI issues, they're kinda slow, they're buggy. But TiVo isn't big enough to get anyone much to code native apps for their platform.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HTML5 is the future. Roku is in the process of switching over to HTML5 as we speak. Apple and Amazon are taking a slightly different approach by using iOS and Android respectively for their streaming devices, but pretty much every other streaming device will be HTML5 eventually. Even the Chromecast is using HTML under the hood, just without the UI part. Services don't want to have to develop and maintain different apps for every platform. HTML5 is a way for them to write once and run anywhere.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

warrenn said:


> A lot of us here are long time Tivo owners, so of course we're going to go with Tivo for OTA. But if you're not a Tivo owner already, going Tivo for OTA doesn't really make as much sense.
> 
> No one can say that Tivo doesn't have good features or that it's not one of the best DVRs. However, the utility of a premium DVR isn't necessarily as important to an OTA person. It's like recommending a Mercedes to someone who only needs a car once per week. Of course Tivo is the best DVR, but Tivo needs to truly understand the the OTA customer if they want to be in that market. I'm an owner since Series 1, but I can't see myself getting a high-priced Tivo with a high monthly fee for OTA when OTA viewing is a small part of what I watch now. When I had cable, I didn't mind the price of Tivo because it was used for 100% of my viewing. But now when it's only 10-20%, it's not as valuable.
> 
> ...


I basically disagree with all of this. I was a Dish customer with a Hopper and Joey system for a few years. I eventually cut off pay TV because I found that most of the content I was watching from Dish was available OTA. I was also already streaming Netflix, Amazon Prime, and MLB.tv more than I was watching content from channels that required a cable/satellite subscription.

I wanted to stop paying $120 for TV service I didn't need. That didn't mean I wanted to give up the features I had gotten used to on my Hopper and Joey setup. I wanted to keep a good guide and DVR access on all the TVs in my house. The Roamio Basic and Tivo Mini were the best way to get that done.

You say that good DVR service isn't important to OTA customers but you should really be saying it isn't important to you. You have sad a couple times that you don't really watch much OTA content. It makes sense that an OTA DVR wouldn't be as important to you as it is to people who do watch lots of OTA content.

As someone else pointed out, even for people who have cable the broadcast networks have the most watched content. Whether I get that through a cable or from an antenna it's the same content and I still want a great DVR. I had never had a Tivo in my life before switching to OTA and streaming only.

A side benefit to the Roamio for me is that it is also a very good streaming device. I already had an Xbox One hooked to my main TV and a Roku on the secondary TV so I didn't really need the Roamio and Mini's streaming support.

What kind of surprised me is that I almost never use my Xbox One or Roku for streaming anymore. The Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, and HBO Go apps on Tivo are nearly identical to the apps on my Xbox One and Roku. The MLB.tv app isn't quite as good but I don't find the difference to be big enough to make it worth switching inputs to the Xbox One and using a game controller instead of a real remote.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Roamio is great for cord cutters. It's the best DVR available and it has almost all the streaming apps I really care about. The only time I switch over to the Xbox One or Roku from the Roamio/Mini is on the rare occasion I want to stream something not available on Tivo. Showtime Anytime and Starz Play are the only things that come to mind and I don't use either of them often.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

warrenn said:


> A lot of us here are long time Tivo owners, so of course we're going to go with Tivo for OTA. But if you're not a Tivo owner already, going Tivo for OTA doesn't really make as much sense.
> 
> No one can say that Tivo doesn't have good features or that it's not one of the best DVRs. However, the utility of a premium DVR isn't necessarily as important to an OTA person. It's like recommending a Mercedes to someone who only needs a car once per week. Of course Tivo is the best DVR, but Tivo needs to truly understand the the OTA customer if they want to be in that market. I'm an owner since Series 1, but I can't see myself getting a high-priced Tivo with a high monthly fee for OTA when OTA viewing is a small part of what I watch now. When I had cable, I didn't mind the price of Tivo because it was used for 100% of my viewing. But now when it's only 10-20%, it's not as valuable.
> 
> ...


Have you done surveys or done market research? I didn't think so.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

The other great thing about my Roamio Basic is that I can easily switch back and forth between cable and OTA only without having to switch equipment or lose my recordings. It sounds like the Bolt works the same way. 

I currently have cable again because of a great double play offer Charter made me. It was as simple as adding a CableCard and tuning adapter to my existing TiVo. When the promo runs out and I go back to OTA I just plug the antenna back in and I get to keep all the stuff I recorded from cable. There isn't really another device on the market that easily lets you do that.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The old Premiere units allowed you to record both OTA and cable at the same time. (two inputs) Unfortunately all models since have been either/or, not both.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> The old Premiere units allowed you to record both OTA and cable at the same time. (two inputs) Unfortunately all models since have been either/or, not both.


I wasn't trying to say I could use both at the same time. I was saying I can, and have, switched back and forth from having an active cable subscription and OTA only depending on what kinds of offers Charter is willing to offer me.

My point was that I am free to cancel cable whenever I want to go back to OTA without having to change my hardware and lose all the shows and movies I recorded when I had cable.

What I said was that my Roamio Basic allows me to do this and there really isn't any competition from other companies that can make it easy to do the same thing.

That is the reason I bought a 4 tuner basic and put in my own 2TB drive instead of paying more for a Plus or Pro. I would have paid more for the extra tuners if those devices supported OTA in addition to cable. The reason I mentioned the Bolt is because I think it works just like my Roamio Basic.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I understand. I was just pointing out that it use to be even better, but they devolved a bit when they went up to 4 tuners.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

There's no money in OTA. The lack of any serious competition even without the nonsense of cablecards and tuning adapters makes that pretty obvious. Tivo loses money on boxes as it already is, so cutting revenues further isn't going to be sustainable for 5 minutes.

For OTA DVRs to have a chance at being a decent business for Tivo, OTA users would have to basically accept 5 year old technology for $300. So basically if Tivo were to make an OTA-only Premiere (or maybe a Mini-level CPU), that might have a half-assed chance at being worthwhile as long as the customer isn't ironically a tech snob at the same time who demands Roamio and Bolt-level performance and features.

Otherwise OTA users just kinda have to accept what they get. They aren't anybody's target audience for a reason.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

warrenn said:


> ... No one can say that Tivo doesn't have good features or that it's not one of the best DVRs. However, the utility of a premium DVR isn't necessarily as important to an OTA person. ...


On the surface this seems like it could be a valid statement. I've had others ask, with the limited number of channels available to OTA users why is a DVR even needed? But for me, going OTA made having a TiVo much more important. It allows me to leverage that limited content and capture all of the content I want to watch regardless of when it airs. For example, ION television does all day marathons of certain shows once per week. There's no way you could watch all of those episodes live, but with TiVo it allows me to stock pile episodes and watch them on my schedule. Had it not been for TiVo I'm nearly certain I would have wound up going back to cable. Now I've been cable free for 6 years with no thoughts of ever going back. I do recall struggling with the initial decision to invest in a TiVo due to the cost. But it didn't take long for me to recognize the money was well spent for the benefits I received. I have still saved many thousands of dollars that I would have spent on cable.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> There's no money in OTA. The lack of any serious competition even without the nonsense of cablecards and tuning adapters makes that pretty obvious. Tivo loses money on boxes as it already is, so cutting revenues further isn't going to be sustainable for 5 minutes.
> 
> For OTA DVRs to have a chance at being a decent business for Tivo, OTA users would have to basically accept 5 year old technology for $300. So basically if Tivo were to make an OTA-only Premiere (or maybe a Mini-level CPU), that might have a half-assed chance at being worthwhile as long as the customer isn't ironically a tech snob at the same time who demands Roamio and Bolt-level performance and features.
> 
> Otherwise OTA users just kinda have to accept what they get. They aren't anybody's target audience for a reason.


I don't really understand your post. Because I cut the cord I have to use an outdated or weak DVR? What? I bought a Roamio Basic and TiVo Mini specifically because I wanted hardware on the same level as the Hopper and Joey I was giving up from Dish. Just because I don't see the value in paying for a bunch of reality TV filled channels doesn't mean I don't want the best possible hardware.

Why can't an OTA customer want a nice DVR like a Roamio or Bolt? I guess I fail to see why TiVo would care whether I'm an OTA or cable customer as long as I bought my Roamio and pay my monthly fee. As far as I am aware TiVo doesn't get any more money whether I have cable or OTA.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

He's saying it's impossible to make a DVR that's cheap, has Roamio level performance and returns enough profit to make it a sustainable business. Which is why the current OTA had a hard $15/mo for life.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

TiVo just needed to have a ONE PRICE DVR product. It is insane how the Channel Masters as so popular, but they are becuse they have no recurring fees. TiVo was so focused on the MSO's being their salvation, they totally missed and then later mis-read the OTA only market. TiVo could have then pushed the upsell of accessories such as the Mini and Stream, and charged a pretty fair price, so long as the cord cutter did not have to pay any recurring fees.

It is all about the "recurring fee" for these customers. TiVo could have designed such a box using its older S3 or even S4 tech/UI and still would have been superior to Channel Master with no new engineering costs. An S5 version would be better, but I could see if TiVo felt it would not get enough return on its investment of S5 tech.

So, now were are on the road to TiVo leaving the Retail market as we know it today (recent TiVo layoffs). I just hope they keep us retail subscribers alive.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

King3pj said:


> I don't really understand your post. Because I cut the cord I have to use an outdated or weak DVR? What? I bought a Roamio Basic and TiVo Mini specifically because I wanted hardware on the same level as the Hopper and Joey I was giving up from Dish. Just because I don't see the value in paying for a bunch of reality TV filled channels doesn't mean I don't want the best possible hardware.
> 
> Why can't an OTA customer want a nice DVR like a Roamio or Bolt? I guess I fail to see why TiVo would care whether I'm an OTA or cable customer as long as I bought my Roamio and pay my monthly fee. As far as I am aware TiVo doesn't get any more money whether I have cable or OTA.


What Dan said.

I'm not saying Tivo should stop making nice DVRs.  The OP wants Tivo to cater more to the greater OTA market, but the greater OTA market falls into a different category than you do -- they're not willing to pay what it costs for a Tivo DVR to be a sustainable and viable business.

Tivo's nice boxes haven't sold in the greater OTA market for 15 years and counting. They're too price-conscious. So for them to accomplish what the OP wants, the only option is a super-cheap device that allows the math to work.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The channel master is $400. What would you say an OTA only Bolt with lifetime is worth? $600? Is TiVos superior UI and features worth $200 more? What about $300 more?


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> The channel master is $400. What would you say an OTA only Bolt with lifetime is worth? $600? Is TiVos superior UI and features worth $200 more? What about $300 more?


I don't think the OTA market is happy with the Channel Master anymore than they are the Bolt or even Tablo for that matter. Its just that there is not any other game in town so you have to pick one. The truth is only a few lucky folks got in on the $300.00 all in Roamio closeout deals and NO the Bolt is not $200 or $300 dollars better for most OTA customers.
I don't agree with Tivo's current marketing strategy but I also understand business and can see they do not believe the OTA market will ever be profitable enough for them so they are moving on and so will I in time.


----------



## phughes200 (Jul 24, 2014)

I think that there is money to be made in the OTA market. Channel Master seems to be doing it. The issue is that the TiVo current business model probably isn't cost effective for the OTA market. TiVo wants to supply a high end experience that seems aimed at the cable market. That cost money which the OTA customer doesn't want to pay for.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

warrenn said:


> A lot of us here are long time Tivo owners, so of course we're going to go with Tivo for OTA. But if you're not a Tivo owner already, going Tivo for OTA doesn't really make as much sense.
> 
> No one can say that Tivo doesn't have good features or that it's not one of the best DVRs. However, the utility of a premium DVR isn't necessarily as important to an OTA person. It's like recommending a Mercedes to someone who only needs a car once per week. Of course Tivo is the best DVR, but Tivo needs to truly understand the the OTA customer if they want to be in that market. I'm an owner since Series 1, but I can't see myself getting a high-priced Tivo with a high monthly fee for OTA when OTA viewing is a small part of what I watch now. When I had cable, I didn't mind the price of Tivo because it was used for 100% of my viewing. But now when it's only 10-20%, it's not as valuable.
> 
> ...


 Most OTA competitors will be gone in 3 to 5 years, it's not a profitable market and it suffers from the same problem as the flat panel TV market, once they bought one they don't need you. Then, there is the problem with free guides, if there is no money in it, why keep it going.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

phughes200 said:


> I think that there is money to be made in the OTA market. Channel Master seems to be doing it. The issue is that the TiVo current business model probably isn't cost effective for the OTA market. TiVo wants to supply a high end experience that seems aimed at the cable market. That cost money which the OTA customer doesn't want to pay for.


 Channel Master makes other things, and is not depending on it's DVR's. If there was really money in this market Samsung could swoop in with a 200 dollar box that would blow everybody out of the water, than TCL would make a 150 DVR and so on. The fact large companies aren't doing this should serve as a warning.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tenthplanet said:


> Channel Master makes other things, and is not depending on it's DVR's. If there was really money in this market Samsung could swoop in with a 200 dollar box that would blow everybody out of the water, than TCL would make a 150 DVR and so on. The fact large companies aren't doing this should serve as a warning.


Exactly.

DVR cheapskates get this through your heads: It is not profitable for any company to build you a $200 DVR that is worth a crap. Shop for closeouts & used deals and you might find something in that price range if you get lucky other wise just admit you don't really want a DVR and move on.

TiVo currently and always has considered itself a software company (hint that means the UI). Building some VCR UI style low cost DVR hardware is not what TIVo does - it is what large CE manufactures might do but have chosen not to because they don't see any/enough market/profit in it.

Also for people who want a DVR and are willing to pay for it what their source of programming is (OTA, cable, Satellite, Uverse) is irrelevant and has little or no barring on why they/we want and are willing to pay for a DVR. Continuing to say TiVo should build a DVR to go after some part of the market that doesn't really want a DVR and isn't willing to pay for one is foolish - which is what people who have cut the cord and are only primarily concerned with OTT video are.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> HTML5 is the future. Roku is in the process of switching over to HTML5 as we speak. Apple and Amazon are taking a slightly different approach by using iOS and Android respectively for their streaming devices, but pretty much every other streaming device will be HTML5 eventually. Even the Chromecast is using HTML under the hood, just without the UI part. Services don't want to have to develop and maintain different apps for every platform. HTML5 is a way for them to write once and run anywhere.


Given its install base on a range of devices around the world (including Amazon Fire TV, Android TV, and a ton of mobile devices), the huge number of apps it already supports, and its open source nature, I'd say the future looks pretty good for Android as well.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Exactly. DVR cheapskates get this through your heads: It is not profitable for any company to build you a $200 DVR that is worth a crap. Shop for closeouts & used deals and you might find something in that price range if you get lucky other wise just admit you don't really want a DVR and move on. TiVo currently and always has considered itself a software company (hint that means the UI). Building some VCR UI style low cost DVR hardware is not what TIVo does - it is what large CE manufactures might do but have chosen not to because they don't see any/enough market/profit in it. Also for people who want a DVR and are willing to pay for it what their source of programming is (OTA, cable, Satellite, Uverse) is irrelevant and has little or no barring on why they/we want and are willing to pay for a DVR. Continuing to say TiVo should build a DVR to go after some part of the market that doesn't really want a DVR and isn't willing to pay for one is foolish - which is what people who have cut the cord and are only primarily concerned with OTT video are.


The popularity of sling tv is evidence of what you say. Streaming and on demand. But it is cheap. A large segment of cord cutters just wants to not spend money.


----------



## miadlor (Sep 4, 2003)

The only real opinion that matters is that of an absolute OTA user.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

miadlor said:


> The only real opinion that matters is that of an absolute OTA user.


Well I am about as absolute as you likely are going to see. Been OTA only since around 2008 and until last spring didn't have internet fast enough to reliably stream stuff. Always had TiVo OTA DVRs and Always thought they were worth what I paid for them. But being able to time shift OTA broadcasts and FF/skipping past most commercials had a pretty high value to me. I routinely save/saved TBs of shows to watch in the off season and use to be in bed during prime time due to work.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

If you want a really cheap Tivo OTA DVR the message has always been wait for a sale. Tivo has some really good sales/closeouts during the year. Many have mentioned the $300 Roamio OTA with lifetime which was a slick deal.

So really the OP's dream already exists. It's called a closeout/sale/deal.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> What Dan said.
> 
> I'm not saying Tivo should stop making nice DVRs.  The OP wants Tivo to cater more to the greater OTA market, but the greater OTA market falls into a different category than you do -- they're not willing to pay what it costs for a Tivo DVR to be a sustainable and viable business.
> 
> Tivo's nice boxes haven't sold in the greater OTA market for 15 years and counting. They're too price-conscious. So for them to accomplish what the OP wants, the only option is a super-cheap device that allows the math to work.


I guess different people cut the cord for different reasons. I didn't do it because I couldn't afford my $120 monthly Dish bill. I did it because I was paying for a bunch of channels I didn't watch and I was increasingly watching more and more streaming content.

I'm in my late 20s with a good job and a nice house. I can afford nice things but I chose to put my money into things besides a Dish bill. I am a tech geek who builds his own PCs and has lots of game consoles.

The thing is, almost none of my friends subscribe to cable or satellite TV anymore. Instead they bought an Xbox One or Roku and stream all of their content.

Admittedly I am the only one in my group of friends who uses a Tivo. Most of them don't use OTA at all. They just subscribe to the commercial free version Hulu Plus and get their network shows that way.

One of my friends bought the $60 Hauppage OTA adapter for Xbox One and I have to say it's really cool. It gets free guide data (no monthly fee) from Microsoft. You can currently only pause and rewind with a half hour buffer and not record shows but later this year they are patching in full OTA DVR support. I'm not saying people will go out and buy a $350 Xbox One for this feature but I can see it being a popular OTA choice for people who already own one.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2956599/video/xbox-one-is-getting-over-the-air-dvr-with-caveats.html


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I think there is a significant subset of "cord-cutters" who think if they have to pay significant amounts of money for anything, they have lost the battle. I personally do not feel this way as I see a lot of value in my Tivo equipment and services. 

I only use my Roku stick in the one room where I have a TV but not a Tivo. 

I only use my AppleTV to watch rented movies (but, honestly, I will probably switch to Amazon for that when my iTunes credits are all gone) and HBO Now. 

I only use my Blu-Ray players for watching discs I own or I am lent. 

Everything else (YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon) are streamed through my Roamio or Minis.

IMHO Tivo should focus on continuing to add more their great boxes considering Amazon, YouTube, and others are testing live streaming of things like Sports.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Latest post over at Dave Zatz's blog is interesting, as well as the comments underneath.

http://zatznotfunny.com/2016-03/tivos-new-ceo-lays-off-50-employees/

Based on the recent quarterly call from TiVo, they're apparently planning to release some kind of new consumer product late this year, something in a new class of products "that go beyond the traditional DVR". Furthermore, nothing more has been said about an OTA-only version of the Bolt.

All this fuels speculation that the Bolt OTA, which TiVo had previously indicated should have been announced by end of 2015, has been scrapped in favor of some new product aimed at cord cutters. My guess is that TiVo has realized that the cord cutter market has firmly moved toward streaming and relatively few are interested in paying the premium necessary for the ability to record OTA TV.

So would the new product be a streaming-only box? Or maybe a streaming + live OTA box (with no hard drive/recording)? Could TiVo produce something that is somehow differentiated from and better for the money than Apple TV, Fire TV or Roku? Maybe the new box will be in partnership with one or more of the "streaming cable" services like Sling TV, the upcoming Vidgo, and/or the upcoming OTT streaming service from DirecTV?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We speculated at one point that TiVo might get into the content provider business and offer a service similar to SlingTV but with a cloud based DVR attached. There was even a TiVo survey a few months back which asked questions relating to this, including which channels were "must have" for you. 

I still think that would be an awesome service for TiVo and could take them in a direction that makes them more viable long term.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

Obviously the OTA market is quite fractured, which is why I included understanding the customers in the subject. In a way, we're probably not the best people to discuss this since we have been using the premium product for so long and see the world through Tivo goggles. We're all Tivo enthusiasts. It's not that *I* want a cheaper product. It's that once I cut the cord and started streaming more, I realized that I'm using my Tivo less-and-less. Recently, I wanted to watch something on Tivo, couldn't find the remote, and couldn't remember the last time I watched Tivo. That got me wondering about the future of Tivo with cord cutters. Am I a typical cord cutter? I don't know. Someone needs to do some market research.

It would be important to understand what percent of the customer's viewing is OTA vs streaming. If 80-100% is OTA, then a Tivo is definitely the best choice. But if only 20% is OTA, then Tivo is not necessarily the best choice. That has nothing to do with the functionality offered. But when your utility of the OTA part of Tivo gets low enough, the high price becomes more of a factor. 

And even though Tivo has streaming, doesn't that only work if you have a subscription? If you cancel the subscription, can you still get Netflix and the other apps? For the person who's 80% streaming, it doesn't necessarily make sense to pay $15/mo just to have the apps enabled.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

For someone like you, who doesn't value the DVR portion, a Channel Master is probably the best choice. Flat up front cost and no reoccurring fees. You can then use a cheap streaming device like a Roku to watch all your streaming content. 

TiVo can't be everything to everyone. They're first and foremost a DVR company, if you don't put a lot of value in the DVR then you're not their target audience.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> For someone like you, who doesn't value the DVR portion, a Channel Master is probably the best choice. Flat up front cost and no reoccurring fees. You can then use a cheap streaming device like a Roku to watch all your streaming content.
> 
> TiVo can't be everything to everyone. They're first and foremost a DVR company, if you don't put a lot of value in the DVR then you're not their target audience.


The fact that most of us still believe a dedicated streaming device makes more sense than trying to use a Roamio or Bolt is certainly something TiVo needs to fix if at all possible. TiVo calls the Bolt a "unified entertainment system" instead of a DVR indicates they know they need to provide a product that meets peoples streaming needs along with being a DVR. If the Bolt did that it would be very price competitive with both a channel master +streaming device or Tablo + streaming device options, especially if the person wants 4K streaming. In the end there is still no cheap -$2-300 option for a good OTA DVR + streaming setup. A one TV setup with a Bolt with lifetime on sale is $700, a dual tuner channel master setup without another stream device is $400ish or $550ish if you want tp add 4K streaming device, same for a Tablo setup $600ish with their lifetime service for a 4 tuner & standard streaming device and $700ish with a 4K streaming device.


----------



## kjacks (Oct 26, 2015)

For me as a long time DTV sub when my last HR10-250 finally died I looked at my options and decided to try OTA/streaming. I already had an antenna for my HD channels so I bought a Roamio OTA and a mini and over the last year it's been great. TIVO gives us exactly what we want. 

We record lots of network shows, subscribe to both netflix and amazon prime and I can do all of that through the TIVO and the mini. Getting rid of the monthly charge on the mini was a great decision. The addition of skip mode has been fantastic. Actually I don't even mind paying the monthly fee as I want TIVO to stay in business and maybe even keep adding features to our boxes - Google play movies please. 

You want to stream get a Roku it's almost free with no recurring charges, but right now I can't imagine a better setup for recording OTA and accessing streaming content with one box.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> The fact that most of us still believe a dedicated streaming device makes more sense than trying to use a Roamio or Bolt is certainly something TiVo needs to fix if at all possible. TiVo calls the Bolt a "unified entertainment system" instead of a DVR indicates they know they need to provide a product that meets peoples streaming needs along with being a DVR. If the Bolt did that it would be very price competitive with both a channel master +streaming device or Tablo + streaming device options, especially if the person wants 4K streaming. In the end there is still no cheap -$2-300 option for a good OTA DVR + streaming setup. A one TV setup with a Bolt with lifetime on sale is $700, a dual tuner channel master setup without another stream device is $400ish or $550ish if you want tp add 4K streaming device, same for a Tablo setup $600ish with their lifetime service for a 4 tuner & standard streaming device and $700ish with a 4K streaming device.


Now that they've added HBOGo I have all the apps I need and have zero use for a dedicated streaming device. I wouldn't mind getting Showtime and Starz apps, but they're less crucial to me as they don't have as much of a back catalog of original content. Most of the other services available on other streaming devices are crap I'd never use anyway.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> I wouldn't mind getting Showtime and Starz apps, but they're less crucial to me as they don't have as much of a back catalog of original content.


Amazon prime has add on subscriptions for showtime and starz.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah but I already pay for them through my cable provider, so I'd be paying twice. If I were OTA only that would be a good option though.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> The fact that most of us still believe a dedicated streaming device makes more sense than trying to use a Roamio or Bolt is certainly something TiVo needs to fix if at all possible.


How does Tivo fix customers that don't want their product? Like trying to get people to want buggy whips as automobiles were ramping up. Tivo might be in a dying business segment.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

chicagobrownblue said:


> How does Tivo fix customers that don't want their product? Like trying to get people to want buggy whips as automobiles were ramping up. Tivo might be in a dying business segment.


There is no fix for people who do not want or are unwilling to pay for a DVR. Unless TiVo is going to make their Mini also a stand alone streaming device that crowd is just not part of Tivo's market.

What TiVo needs to fix is making their "Unified Entertainment System" work well for people that want access to streaming but also want and are willing to a pay for a DVR, so they do not need to buy another Streaming Device to get access to all the apps/service they want. TiVo is there functionally with the Bolt and maybe even the Roamio series and they are allot closer app/service wise than they were 6 months ago but they still need more apps/services to be a complete option.


----------



## floorabove (Oct 26, 2015)

IMO 8-10$ per month is the right price for OTA dvr fees. 
No lifetime for OTA dvr, that would make TIVO money. 

At 8-10 a month most people dont think twice. 

Anything higher and they hesitate to pull the trigger. 

Just look at how HBO now is struggling at 15/month vs netflix or hulu which are 8-10.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> There is no fix for people who do not want or are unwilling to pay for a DVR. Unless TiVo is going to make their Mini also a stand alone streaming device that crowd is just not part of Tivo's market.
> 
> What TiVo needs to fix is making their "Unified Entertainment System" work well for people that want access to streaming but also want and are willing to a pay for a DVR, so they do not need to buy another Streaming Device to get access to all the apps/service they want. TiVo is there functionally with the Bolt and maybe even the Roamio series and they are allot closer app/service wise than they were 6 months ago but they still need more apps/services to be a complete option.


I completely agree. If Tivo could match the streaming capabilities of a Roku with the DVR capabilities of a Roamio/Bolt they would have the perfect box.

They would need an app store full of choices like Roku and Apple TV have instead of just adding the ones they think are important like they do now though. They also need to greatly improve the Hulu Plus app.

In a perfect world they could just partner with Roku like some TV manufacturers have. They could basically just build a Roku into the Tivo and let Roku handle all the streaming duties. That would give them a massive list of streaming choices and improve the quality of some of the apps we have today.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Hasn't TiVo published that something like 80% of the shows recorded by TiVo users are network shows? So that would indicate a great deal of interest still in network programming as well as a fair amount of sports to boot. I recognize there are other means to get much of that programming but using a TiVo is still a great way to get lots of programming on the cheap and even incorporate the major streaming apps.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

TeamPace said:


> Hasn't TiVo published that something like 80% of the shows recorded by TiVo users are network shows? So that would indicate a great deal of interest still in network programming as well as a fair amount of sports to boot.


Many people think of network/ota shows as "second rate" compared to cable or premium cable shows. I think that's the OP's primary bias too. And nothing's going to convince them otherwise. You can't really blame them since the networks have been feeding us reality/unscripted shows from a fire hose for over 15 years.

I've been OTA-only since 2009. There's still 20 or so entries in my Season Pass list. Funny thing, not having the 110+ channels of crap on cable, but being able to farm the nuggets of gold from 10-12 OTA channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I think you're in the minority when it comes to not watching network TV. Even for cable customers network TV makes up a majority of content consumed.


I watch very little network content, and more cable content. But I may be in the minority.

As for the OTA TiVo, I think this is the one business where TiVo could be very successful selling standalone DVRs. The CableCard model can't hit the mass market because of the competition from cable DVRs, and the utterly ridiculous process of pairing a CableCard, which TiVo has no control over.

However, on the OTA side, things are a lot better, and TiVo doesn't have any "default" competition like they do from the cableco DVRs.

What I've run into are people who don't have any TV, and a lot of people who have been living under a rock for the past decade, and don't even know OTA exists. I think TiVo needs to advertise and get these people interested in what TiVo can do with streaming and OTA together. The hard part is how to reach them, as a lot of them don't watch TV at all at the moment. There is also a market of people who may have cable just for the DVR, and would be willing to go to OTA if they knew about TiVo and what it can do with OTA.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

How about a cable/OTA DVR from TiVo that can record streaming content like Netflix and others, then you don't have to keep track of when a movie/show is going away, and having a wish list would also be great to tell when a movie does come to any service like Netflix, etc. Or would such a system be illegal ?


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

lessd said:


> How about a cable/OTA DVR from TiVo that can record streaming content like Netflix and others, then you don't have to keep track of when a movie/show is going away, and having a wish list would also be great to tell when a movie does come to any service like Netflix, etc. Or would such a system be illegal ?


Ideally that would be close to the ultimate solution but I don't think its going to happen because I am pretty sure the programmers won't allow it. I alos do not think a DVR is all that important if the same programming is available on demand in the cloud. This is part of Tivo's problem, In a few years a DVR will be mostly obsolete accept for the die hard folks that insist on storing content locally and even then I think more and more programming will be locked or encrypted from recording all together. Pirates will figure a way around it but most won't bother as long as it stays available for a reasonable price in the cloud.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

King3pj said:


> I completely agree. If Tivo could match the streaming capabilities of a Roku with the DVR capabilities of a Roamio/Bolt they would have the perfect box.
> 
> They would need an app store full of choices like Roku and Apple TV have instead of just adding the ones they think are important like they do now though. They also need to greatly improve the Hulu Plus app.
> 
> In a perfect world they could just partner with Roku like some TV manufacturers have. They could basically just build a Roku into the Tivo and let Roku handle all the streaming duties. That would give them a massive list of streaming choices and improve the quality of some of the apps we have today.


The reason streaming apps are limited is becuase of thier unified search and one pass. They couldn't integrate all the apps on a Roku that deeply becuase the data isn't available.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lessd said:


> How about a cable/OTA DVR from TiVo that can record streaming content like Netflix and others, then you don't have to keep track of when a movie/show is going away, and having a wish list would also be great to tell when a movie does come to any service like Netflix, etc. Or would such a system be illegal ?


Not sure what restrictions cable cards puts on them, but PlayOn claims they can record Netflix & Hulu so perhaps a DVR that used a web browser to access service instead of an app could but I am sure no site's app is going to allow recording.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Not sure what restrictions cable cards puts on them, but PlayOn claims they can record Netflix & Hulu so perhaps a DVR that used a web browser to access service instead of an app could but I am sure no site's app is going to allow recording.


 Play On is borderline illegal, recording Netflix and Hulu are violations of T.O.S.
of those services.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah and PlayOn works by screen scraping, which TiVo can't do. TiVo only has these apps becuase these sevices allow it. If they screen scraped like that the services would just pull the apps.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> The reason streaming apps are limited is becuase of thier unified search and one pass. They couldn't integrate all the apps on a Roku that deeply becuase the data isn't available.


There is a unified search on my Roku. You can search for a movie or show in the main Roku menu and find out what streaming services have it available.

Either way, I'd rather have my choice of apps even if only the main ones TiVo selects have unified search and One Pass support.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> I watch very little network content, and more cable content. But I may be in the minority.
> 
> As for the OTA TiVo, I think this is the one business where TiVo could be very successful selling standalone DVRs. The CableCard model can't hit the mass market because of the competition from cable DVRs, and the utterly ridiculous process of pairing a CableCard, which TiVo has no control over.
> 
> ...


~35% of the content viewed on MSO come from OTA TV. That is why it is much more important to most users than a single Cable Channel when re-transmission fights break out.

And considering hundreds - if not 1000+ TV stations will sign off the air by the end of this year, everything anyone thinks about OTA is about to be turned upside down, regardless of if ATSC 3.0 happens or not (it will).

Bottom line, come January 2017, the OTA TV selection will be much smaller than it is today. As thus, with static/falling Retail Numbers and fast growing MSO numbers, TiVo realizes where it's future lies.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The reason streaming apps are limited is becuase of thier unified search and one pass. They couldn't integrate all the apps on a Roku that deeply becuase the data isn't available.


Plex is a streaming app and it is not integrated into unified search. (although I wish it were). Your assertion is already broken in the current group of apps.

Plex integration is Tivo's attempt to replace the Tivo Desktop PC functionality.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

King3pj said:


> There is a unified search on my Roku. You can search for a movie or show in the main Roku menu and find out what streaming services have it available. Either way, I'd rather have my choice of apps even if only the main ones TiVo selects have unified search and One Pass support.


The unified search on Roku is limited to major apps, whatever that means. However, it does work well for what it does.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> What TiVo needs to fix is making their "Unified Entertainment System" work well for people that want access to streaming but also want and are willing to a pay for a DVR,


But they are only willing to pay less. Tivo generated all of $233,000 cash for the fiscal year ending 1/31/2016. A couple of electrical engineers, programmers, QA people plus prototypes will run through millions. I unfortuneately see all this as a potential end game for Tivo


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

warrenn said:


> I've seen that Tivo does have some OTA-only models, but they don't really seem to be designed for the OTA customer. They seem to be designed for the Tivo enthusiast who loves Tivo and is willing to pay the higher price. For Tivo to be viable in the OTA market, I think they would need:
> 
> - A lower-cost box (smaller disk/no streaming)
> - Much lower cost service ($5 or less per month)
> ...


How much does this retro box sell for? The difference between $5/month and $15/month is not as great as the difference between $0/month and $5/month. 'No monthly fee' is the mantra of cord cutters. This really sounds like a MoHu Channels. They could not give those away.



warrenn said:


> The low-cost OTA Tivo probably wouldn't need streaming. The OTA customer is going to rely more heavily on streaming services, so they want a premium product for that (Roku, Amazon, Apple). I prefer to use my Roku over Tivo because the UI is better and 99.9999999999% of the streaming channels are available on Roku. Even if the OTA Tivo had streaming, the OTA customer probably wouldn't use it because they likely have a dedicated streaming box.


I think you are incorrect on this. People talk about this all the time. No one wants twelve remote controls. A TiVo with streaming is MUCH better than a TiVo and a Roku. Harmony remotes are expensive and too much work for a casual tv viewer.



warrenn said:


> I wouldn't recommend Tivo for most OTA customers. The high price means that they would really have to love it for the small amount of shows they'd use it for. For most people, I don't think they would really see the value of the box price and $15/mo. But if instead the box was $200 and $5/mo for service (or $0 for VCR-like), I could see a lot of people getting that solution. And then once they've used Tivo for a while, they'd be more likely to look for a Tivo solution if they ever went back to cable.


This is correct. There are <1,000,000 subscribed TiVos. This translates to less than half a million consumers. TiVo is a niche product. Let's do the math on your proposition (Retro vs Roamio...

Year 1: $260 vs $230
Year 2: $320 vs $410
Year 3: $380 vs $590

Even in year 3, the savings is only $6/month. No monthly fee is better, but that's not a TiVo. Remember that Channel Master, Funai, and Homeworx also make DVRs.



davefred99 said:


> It is not fair to compare the cost of ownership on the new Bolt model with those of us that were lucky enough to get in on the Roamio lifetime close out deal. Sure if all you have is $300.00 in a one time investment Tivo makes sense for OTA/Cordcutters. The idea of paying never ending annual or monthly fees just goes against the logic of cordcutting to start with.


Not sure if it's 'fair', but you are correct. At $300 with a 500g disk and Lifetime, the Roamio/OTA is the best deal on a DVR. No contest. At $50 plus $15/month, the DVR+ is a much better deal.



davefred99 said:


> Having said that I also think the Party is almost over for Tivo in the retail market they have said loud and clear its not were they are focusing there resources anymore. Tivo will likely be around for a few more years but its an End of Line product. Enjoy it while it lasts but be prepared to move on in the future.
> 
> I do not expect any new features not already in the works and older products will not be upgraded. Its pretty obvious to me they are fazing out of the retail business.


There are a couple issues here. First, what would you add? More tuners? A bigger disk? More apps? A more complex content search algorithm? The TiVo is a VERY mature product. OTT recording is about the only thing left. Obstacles to that are legal and political -- might even be codified in their supplier agreements. I'm not convinced that there is much demand for this anyway. If they really want to go that way, add a DLNA client for PlayLater. I think TiVo would like to be out of the hardware business. I think they would like to do what Roku has so miserably failed to do -- license their service to hardware manufacturers and focus on improving the service. I think TiVo will have as much success as Roku in this. TiVo is in a tough place right now.



atmuscarella said:


> Regarding OTA, if people think some company is going to develop, support, market, & manufacture some sub $2-300 DVR and it is going to do *everything you want*, you are living in dream land.


Here's the problem: When you put an antenna on your roof and run a cable to your television(s), there is a small, one time cost. Modern televisions include a PSIP guide, so while primitive, the experience is complete. THAT is FREE TV. If you want to record the programming, you add a DVR to the mix. If you add a CM DVR+ or a HomeWorx HW-150PVR, there are still no ongoing costs. As soon as you decide to stream or go TiVo, you add recurring cost. Most of the people who put up an antenna are trying to avoid recurring costs. Most of the people I know who use an antenna do not have any kind of DVR or streamer.



foghorn2 said:


> Tivo needs to find a different revenue stream and lower the monthly fee for dvr service. Partner with Sling, HBO- whatever. think outside the "box"!!


Not sure content providers are compensating for placement. Channel Master is having a terrible time getting Amazon and Netflix on their box. The best opportunity for alternate revenue is ads and it will be tough for TiVo to go there having convinced their customers that ad skipping is the ultimate feature of a DVR.



Dan203 said:


> I'm not sure why OTA people complain so much about the price.


Not sure saying you do not want to pay for something counts as complaining. Price is a factor. I can't believe people pay $15/month for an EPG when every television comes with a free EPG. To each his own.



warrenn said:


> A lot of us here are long time Tivo owners, so of course we're going to go with Tivo for OTA. But if you're not a Tivo owner already, going Tivo for OTA doesn't really make as much sense.
> 
> It's like recommending a Mercedes to someone...
> 
> I don't think marketing a premium DVR to OTA customers will be a successful strategy. There just aren't enough premium customers in that market.


The gap between TiVo and its competitors is closing everyday. Few want or use ALL TiVo's features. Competitors do some of the things for less. People choose the features they like and pay the price for that. Some do not choose TiVo. Magnavox is attacking the feeless-wholehouse-set top niche foregoing streaming altogether.



BigJimOutlaw said:


> There's no money in OTA. For OTA DVRs to have a chance at being a decent business for Tivo, OTA users would have to basically accept 5 year old technology for $300. So basically if Tivo were to make an OTA-only Premiere (or maybe a Mini-level CPU), that might have a half-assed chance at being worthwhile as long as the customer isn't ironically a tech snob at the same time who demands Roamio and Bolt-level performance and features.
> 
> Otherwise OTA users just kinda have to accept what they get. They aren't anybody's target audience for a reason.


Channel Master, Funai, and Homeworx (among others) say hello.



Series3Sub said:


> TiVo just needed to have a ONE PRICE DVR product. It is insane how the Channel Masters as so popular, but they are becuse they have no recurring fees. TiVo was so focused on the MSO's being their salvation, they totally missed and then later mis-read the OTA only market. TiVo could have then pushed the upsell of accessories such as the Mini and Stream, and charged a pretty fair price, so long as the cord cutter did not have to pay any recurring fees.


Is Channel Master selling a lot of DVRs? I asked one of their marketing guys and he was pretty coy. Have you seen sales figures? The DVR+ barely got a mention in EchoStar's Q4 call. The 'one price' for TiVo has, traditionally, been around $700 with Lifetime. Can't lower prices too much without cannibalizing their most profitable segment. The Mini is a great way to keep people from considering competitors when the TiVo host needs to be replaced, but it also costs in sales of revenue generating models.



Series3Sub said:


> It is all about the "recurring fee" for these customers. TiVo could have designed such a box using its older S3 or even S4 tech/UI and still would have been superior to Channel Master with no new engineering costs. An S5 version would be better, but I could see if TiVo felt it would not get enough return on its investment of S5 tech.
> 
> So, now were are on the road to TiVo leaving the Retail market as we know it today (recent TiVo layoffs). I just hope they keep us retail subscribers alive.


You underestimate the DVR+. Seriously. Sling TV is very compelling for a lot of people. No fees and free streaming content appeals to others.



davefred99 said:


> I don't think the OTA market is happy with the Channel Master anymore than they are the Bolt or even Tablo for that matter. Its just that there is not any other game in town so you have to pick one. The truth is only a few lucky folks got in on the $300.00 all in Roamio closeout deals and NO the Bolt is not $200 or $300 dollars better for most OTA customers.


Plenty of people are very happy with all of these. I have never owned a Tablo, but I own seven Simple TV DVRs which are very similar. For people who mostly stream but enjoy OTA and are already invested in Roku, these whole house streamers are pretty decent. Performance is much better than the Stream. I own three DVR+s. I'm very happy with these. People who bought these for $150 last BF are still giddy. Who doesn't like the Bolt? The only complaint I have heard is about the cost of the ALL IN plans. Everyone is always looking for the next great thing, but there is no lack of options and price points right now.



davefred99 said:


> I don't agree with Tivo's current marketing strategy but I also understand business and can see they do not believe the OTA market will ever be profitable enough for them so they are moving on and so will I in time.


If they believe that people are leaving premium providers, then they will want to be where those people go. OTT'ers spend more money on TV and cloud solutions are less expensive, so expect the Aereo brand to resurface. I don't see any way TiVo competes in OTA unless they can make things work at $300 with Lifetime.



tenthplanet said:


> Most OTA competitors will be gone in 3 to 5 years, it's not a profitable market and it suffers from the same problem as the flat panel TV market, once they bought one they don't need you. Then, there is the problem with free guides, if there is no money in it, why keep it going.


When I fired Comcast in 2010, the two DVRs were the TiVo and the recently discontinued DTVPal. The Pal was followed by a Channel Master clone then an Entone DVR. At the time Magnavox/Funai was making digital VCRs. I chose the $200 DTVPal over the $700 TiVo. I was very concerned that by the time I needed to replace the Pals, TiVo would be the only game in town. Now EchoStar is building DVRs for Channel Master again and Magnavox is finally making full feature DVRs. I think the OTA market will be very robust in five years.



atmuscarella said:


> DVR cheapskates get this through your heads: It is not profitable for any company to build you a $200 DVR that is worth a crap. Shop for closeouts & used deals and you might find something in that price range if you get lucky other wise just admit you don't really want a DVR and move on.
> 
> TiVo currently and always has considered itself a software company (hint that means the UI). Building some VCR UI style low cost DVR hardware is not what TIVo does - it is what large CE manufactures might do but have chosen not to because they don't see any/enough market/profit in it.
> 
> Also for people who want a DVR and are willing to pay for it what their source of programming is (OTA, cable, Satellite, Uverse) is irrelevant and has little or no barring on why they/we want and are willing to pay for a DVR. Continuing to say TiVo should build a DVR to go after some part of the market that doesn't really want a DVR and isn't willing to pay for one is foolish - which is what people who have cut the cord and are only primarily concerned with OTT video are.


You completely misunderstand the market.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> You completely misunderstand the market.


Users of OTA TV are not a universal market. For purposes of building CE products and specifically DVRs to support people using OTA TV you have a number of niche markets.

It is impossible for a company to profitably produce one DVR that fits the desires of these various niche markets. We can go around all day saying what this small group wants or what that small group wants, the problem for CE manufactures is still the same it is a small group.

TiVo targets the small group that want what TiVo offers and are willing to pay for it - which again is the UI as much as the hardware. Other manufactures target different small groups with a product that, that small group is willing to pay for.

Because the demand for DVRs for each of various OTA niche markets is in the thousands it is not practical for manufactures to offer a range of DVRs that address the whole market and my guess is the demand for OTA DVRs isn't going to increase.

Those that want to believe there is some large mass market for OTA DVRs and that TiVo would find it and be profitable if they only sold their OTA DVRs for less (lets be clear complaining about service fees is just another way of saying it costs to much) are welcome to continue to believe that. I just disagree with you.

It really is that simple.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jcthorne said:


> Plex is a streaming app and it is not integrated into unified search. (although I wish it were). Your assertion is already broken in the current group of apps.
> 
> Plex integration is Tivo's attempt to replace the Tivo Desktop PC functionality.


Plex is the exception. And originally it was actually in the Music & Photos section, rather then with the other video apps, specifically because it lacked that integration. But people complained and TiVo moved it. Every other video app is integrated with search/onepass.

I know you guys say that you're rather have more apps even if they weren't integrated, but that would be sloppy and most people would complain.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Let me explain.

_You said, "DVR cheapskates get this through your heads: It is not profitable for any company to build you a $200 DVR that is worth a crap. Shop for closeouts & used deals and you might find something in that price range if you get lucky other wise just admit you don't really want a DVR and move on."
_
You have no idea what others deem 'worth a crap'. There are very good new, warranted DVRs under $200 which appeal to a lot of people. The lowly Mediasonic HW-150PVR has 1045 positive reviews on Amazon. Only one of my DTVPals cost more than $200 (1t disk upgrade). These are still excellent DVRs.

I own three Roamio OTAs, three CM DVR+s, three (working) DTVPals, two Minis, and seven Simple TV DVRs. Is there any chance I do not want a DVR?

I don't pretend to represent the market, but a LOT of DVRs have been sold to people who think $700 is too much to spend on a set top box.

_You said, "Continuing to say TiVo should build a DVR to go after some part of the market that doesn't really want a DVR and isn't willing to pay for one is foolish - which is what people who have cut the cord and are only primarily concerned with OTT video are."
_
I, for one, do not think TiVo should compete in OTA. Their stated mission does not include the services cord cutters value most. Their products do not work as well with broadcast television as cable/satellite and do not work untethered at all. Most of the people who ask for this are TiVo users moving to OTA who want TiVo to come with them.

_You said, "Users of OTA TV are not a universal market. For purposes of building CE products and specifically DVRs to support people using OTA TV you have a number of niche markets."
_
Video entertainment is a fragmented market. Today, we talk about 'cord nevers', 'cord cutters', and 'cord trimmers'. Some viewers like 3D and others get excited about 4k. Among the 4k'ers, some prefer optical media to streaming. As I said earlier, TiVo, after twenty years, TiVo remains a niche product. In fact, in TiVo is in 80% less households today than it was in 2006.

_You said, "Because the demand for DVRs for each of various OTA niche markets is in the thousands it is not practical for manufactures to offer a range of DVRs that address the whole market and my guess is the demand for OTA DVRs isn't going to increase."
_
I agree.

_You said, "Those that want to believe there is some large mass market for OTA DVRs and that TiVo would find it and be profitable if they only sold their OTA DVRs for less...are welcome to continue to believe that. I just disagree with you."_

There is a large and growing market for inexpensive, untethered OTA DVRs. I never said TiVo should be competing for that. So, I'm not the guy you are disagreeing with. I simply said you misunderstood the market. The world is not clamoring for an inexpensive TiVo. People unwilling to pay a monthly fee for an EPG -- a very nice, interactive EPG -- spend a lot of money on televisions, BD players, AVRs, speakers, and subscriptions. They simply do not value the TiVo EPG as much as you do. This is why TiVo added streaming services.


----------



## King3pj (Feb 28, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> I know you guys say that you're rather have more apps even if they weren't integrated, but that would be sloppy and most people would complain.


You think most people would rather not have all their streaming services on one device at all than have them without One Pass support? I must be in the minority then.

Sure, unified search and One Pass support are cool but I would gladly take Showtime Anytime and Starz Play support even without those features. I'm sure other people would like NBA League Pass, NHL Gamecenter, or other apps available on Roku that we don't have now.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wizwor said:


> Let me explain.
> 
> You said, "DVR cheapskates get this through your heads: It is not profitable for any company to build you a $200 DVR that is worth a crap. Shop for closeouts & used deals and you might find something in that price range if you get lucky other wise just admit you don't really want a DVR and move on."
> 
> You have no idea what others deem 'worth a crap'. There are very good new, warranted DVRs under $200 which appeal to a lot of people. The lowly Mediasonic HW-150PVR 1045 positive reviews. Only one of my DTVPals cost more than $200 (1t disk upgrade). These are still excellent DVRs..


Granted what a excellent, good, acceptable, or unacceptable DVR is, is personal and certainly subjective. I can buy anything that functions as well as my TiVo HD as being an acceptable OTA DVR. While I am sure someone might find a VCR style DVR acceptable it is not on my list.



wizwor said:


> There is a large and growing market for inexpensive, untethered OTA DVRs. I never said TiVo should be competing for that. So, I'm not the guy you are disagreeing with. I simply said you misunderstood the market. The world is not clamoring for an inexpensive TiVo. People unwilling to pay a monthly fee for an EPG -- a very nice, interactive EPG -- spend a lot of money on televisions, BD players, AVRs, speakers, and subscriptions. They simply do not value the TiVo EPG as much as you do. This is why TiVo added streaming services.


Sorry I don't buy the first line of this paragraph at all. There is no data the shows what you are saying.

Well I think you are the one misunderstanding the market.

What I actually think the OTA/cord cutter market is looking for is device with all the DVR functionality of a TiVo and all the streaming functionality of a Roku, that cost what a Roku does. Heck I am sure there are some who think they should include a UHD Blu-ray player for that price too.

But of course I don't have any more data than you do, as it doesn't exist. So we can just agree to disagree.

Just to end what you are paying for with a TiVo isn't an EPG it is the whole TiVo UI and supported services. If someone doesn't think it is worth what it costs, that is fine. Or if someone thinks there are too many unresolved issues with it or that it doesn't do all they think it should do, that is also fine. But saying you are paying for an EPG is foolishness.


----------



## KSOC Kid (Nov 19, 2015)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ~35% of the content viewed on MSO come from OTA TV. That is why it is much more important to most users than a single Cable Channel when re-transmission fights break out.
> 
> And considering hundreds - if not 1000+ TV stations will sign off the air by the end of this year, everything anyone thinks about OTA is about to be turned upside down, regardless of if ATSC 3.0 happens or not (it will).
> 
> Bottom line, come January 2017, the OTA TV selection will be much smaller than it is today. As thus, with static/falling Retail Numbers and fast growing MSO numbers, TiVo realizes where it's future lies.


So just what happens in January? My just purchased Roamio OTA eventually becomes obsolete and the new digital TV's need new converter boxes? So, hold off buying anything TV or DVR until the ATSC 3.0 compatible units arrive? I know zero about this change over.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

KSOC Kid said:


> So just what happens in January? My just purchased Roamio OTA eventually becomes obsolete and the new digital TV's need new converter boxes? So, hold off buying anything TV or DVR until the ATSC 3.0 compatible units arrive? I know zero about this change over.


That's all you need to know.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ~35% of the content viewed on MSO come from OTA TV. That is why it is much more important to most users than a single Cable Channel when re-transmission fights break out.


True. That other 65% is spread out amongst 100+ channels.



> And considering hundreds - if not 1000+ TV stations will sign off the air by the end of this year, everything anyone thinks about OTA is about to be turned upside down, regardless of if ATSC 3.0 happens or not (it will).


Huh? What TV stations are going off? Some LP stations that no one watches? I don't think any of the big 4 or PBS are going anywhere.

The value proposition of an OTA TiVo is the big 4 and PBS. 5 channels with a good chunk of the content that people want to watch.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

TeamPace said:


> Hasn't TiVo published that something like 80% of the shows recorded by TiVo users are network shows? So that would indicate a great deal of interest still in network programming as well as a fair amount of sports to boot. I recognize there are other means to get much of that programming but using a TiVo is still a great way to get lots of programming on the cheap and even incorporate the major streaming apps.


In my case, my OTA Tivo is used for 100% network programming. However, watching shows on my Tivo accounts for less than 20% of my total viewing. The other 80% is from some type of streaming service. When Tivo is only 20%, that $15/mo could easily be put toward some other streaming service.



atmuscarella said:


> What TiVo needs to fix is making their "Unified Entertainment System" work well for people that want access to streaming but also want and are willing to a pay for a DVR, so they do not need to buy another Streaming Device to get access to all the apps/service they want. TiVo is there functionally with the Bolt and maybe even the Roamio series and they are allot closer app/service wise than they were 6 months ago but they still need more apps/services to be a complete option.


This probably is another path for Tivo's future success. Right now I prefer a standalone streaming device like Roku because it's going to almost always have the apps I want. With Tivo, I had to wait until they get around to adding it. The last Tivo I bought was HD Tivo and the app support was pretty sparse. I'm not sure if they've gotten better or not. But if Tivo could have an OTA DVR which also had the same app support as Roku and the rest, it would be more viable. And the apps would absolutely have to continue working even if there was no service. There's no point in subscription-locking the apps since there are so many cheaper streaming solutions than a Tivo box.

One other possible way for them to be successful is to allow some sort of minimal service after you have subscribed for a year. So if you cancel after 1 year, you can use your Tivo to record 1-2 shows per day. If you cancel after 2 years, you can record 2-3 shows. Or maybe Tivo can create an $8/mo service where you get limited functionality. This way someone with minimal DVR needs can still use the Tivo and will stay in the Tivo ecosystem and may resubscribe. If it has no capability without service, then the customer is likely to move to some other solution and may not come back to Tivo.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

KSOC Kid said:


> So just what happens in January? My just purchased Roamio OTA eventually becomes obsolete and the new digital TV's need new converter boxes? So, hold off buying anything TV or DVR until the ATSC 3.0 compatible units arrive? I know zero about this change over.





Bigg said:


> Huh? What TV stations are going off? Some LP stations that no one watches? I don't think any of the big 4 or PBS are going anywhere.
> 
> The value proposition of an OTA TiVo is the big 4 and PBS. 5 channels with a good chunk of the content that people want to watch.


This is only the first part. Has NOTHING to do with ATSC 3.0.

And I am not even counting LP stations in the 100s if not 1000+ statement. Those will sign off later.

Then in the 39 months after the auction is complete later this year, up to 1,200 full power stations will move frequencies - and many will move to VHF - which will result in very different reception scenarios without even considering ATSC 3.0. Many of those remaining on the repacked UHF band will have different coverage with more interference in a compressed band.

And while you are correct the big 4 and PBS will most likely be somewhere on the band, in many markets they will end up sharing the same RF Channel with another which will really play havoc on OTA Video Quality. As for PBS, it is thought that many PBS Stations will participate and cash out to quit OTA - moving to an online model.

As most know, VHF is not as easy to receive as UHF as well. It does not have the penetration inhouse and a different type of antenna is needed for optimal results.

Yes, the OTA experience is about to change dramatically.

But as people tend not believe what they do not want to hear (which means I am often dismissed), Google it yourself "FCC Broadcast Spectrum Auction".


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> This is only the first part. Has NOTHING to do with ATSC 3.0.
> 
> And I am not even counting LP stations in the 100s if not 1000+ statement. Those will sign off later.


Per the FCC, there are less than 1800 television stations in the US. 400 of those are educational television. A lot of these are cashing in on the auction because there is a lot of overlap and they are losing patrons, viewers, and government support. Among the 1400 commercial stations, a lot were bought/licensed in anticipation of the auction -- insider trading, if you will. WBIN, for instance, is just powerful enough to have to be carried on cable. They even advertise by their Comcast channel rather than their real or virtual channel. They have licen$ed but not built three LP $tation$. We have three different ION affiliates as well. No one will miss these.

UHF COMMERCIAL TV 1031
VHF COMMERCIAL TV 356
UHF EDUCATIONAL TV 289
VHF EDUCATIONAL TV 106
TOTAL 1,782

As for ATSC 3.0, I have decided that when this arrives, it will come in the form of a separate box on a separate hdmi input as a premium/hd/pay tier of programming. We actually had such a service in the 70s. Legacy broadcaster will lag until ATSC tuners achieve critical mass.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Then in the 39 months after the auction is complete later this year, up to 1,200 full power stations will move frequencies - and many will move to VHF - which will result in very different reception scenarios without even considering ATSC 3.0. Many of those remaining on the repacked UHF band will have different coverage with more interference in a compressed band.


This is a concern to me personally. Right now, all but one of my UHF stations are due south and I collect very successfully with a DB8e pointed in that direction. I have three VHF stations. I collect two of these with a Y5-7-13 pointed due west and the third -- which is 60 miles of me -- using a Y10-7-13.

A repacking that moves some UHF broadcasters to VHF could be disruptive for me.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And while you are correct the big 4 and PBS will most likely be somewhere on the band, in many markets they will end up sharing the same RF Channel with another which will really play havoc on OTA Video Quality. As for PBS, it is thought that many PBS Stations will participate and cash out to quit OTA - moving to an online model.


There is a station in California that has packed 30ish stations into a single channel. Given the ratio of SD to HD content (never mind 4k), and the number of stations with no sub-channels, I'm confident this will work itself out. In Boston, we have WGBX, WGBH, and WENH stations just on the North Shore. Sub-channels vary, but there is no reason that two of these could not go away.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As most know, VHF is not as easy to receive as UHF as well. It does not have the penetration inhouse and a different type of antenna is needed for optimal results.


I don't know this. There are a lot of factors. Read the history of WMTW to see what is possible on VHF.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, the OTA experience is about to change dramatically.


The disruption will be dramatically less disruptive than the analog to digital change. OTA was not killed off by a change that rendered most television tuners obsolete. Moving a few channels from one frequency to another will not either. Moving within the same band, will go unnoticed.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> But as people tend not believe what they do not want to hear (which means I am often dismissed), Google it yourself "FCC Broadcast Spectrum Auction".


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

The Commission has announced the following totals for broadcast stations licensed as of December 31, 2015:

UHF COMMERCIAL TV 1031
VHF COMMERCIAL TV 356
UHF EDUCATIONAL TV 289
VHF EDUCATIONAL TV 106
TOTAL 1,782

CLASS A UHF STATIONS 386
CLASS A VHF STATIONS 19
TOTAL 405

UHF TRANSLATORS 2764
VHF TRANSLATORS 840
TOTAL 3604

UHF LOW POWER TV 1473
VHF LOW POWER TV 349
TOTAL 1,822
- FCC - 
Sounds like fun.  We'll compare this to the numbers on 12/31/2016.

edit: oops. Fixed numbers.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> This is only the first part. Has NOTHING to do with ATSC 3.0.
> 
> And I am not even counting LP stations in the 100s if not 1000+ statement. Those will sign off later.
> 
> Then in the 39 months after the auction is complete later this year, up to 1,200 full power stations will move frequencies - and many will move to VHF - which will result in very different reception scenarios without even considering ATSC 3.0. Many of those remaining on the repacked UHF band will have different coverage with more interference in a compressed band.


This happened before in the analog to digital conversion. People will have to get VHF antennas. Some people will lose stations, some will gain them, most will just have a different antenna.

I think the whole idea of auctioning more spectrum off is a stupid idea, but I don't think it will really have that much of an impact when all is said and done. It will cause plenty of chaos in the meantime though.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

The last two posts don't jibe. 

The document posted includes radio stations. The following post seems to confuse them with tv stations? Or do I need my coffee this morning?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> The last two posts don't jibe.
> 
> The document posted includes radio stations. The following post seems to confuse them with tv stations? Or do I need my coffee this morning?


My source. Loads slowly. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/Query.do?docTitleDesc=Broadcast+Station+Totals&parm=all


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

TonyD79 said:


> The last two posts don't jibe.
> 
> The document posted includes radio stations. The following post seems to confuse them with tv stations? Or do I need my coffee this morning?


The second seems to be a bad copy paste from the first...



JoeKustra said:


> The Commission has announced the following totals for broadcast stations licensed as of December 31, 2015:
> *15,480* UHF COMMERCIAL TV
> *1031* VHF COMMERCIAL TV
> *356* UHF EDUCATIONAL TV
> *289* VHF EDUCATIONAL TV





FCC said:


> BROADCAST STATION TOTALS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015
> The Commission has announced the following totals for broadcast stations licensed as of
> December 31, 2015:
> AM STATIONS 4684
> ...


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

I was off by one line. Updated numbers posted. Sorry. Updated numbers:

The Commission has announced the following totals for broadcast stations licensed as of December 31, 2015:

UHF COMMERCIAL TV 1031
VHF COMMERCIAL TV 356
UHF EDUCATIONAL TV 289
VHF EDUCATIONAL TV 106
TOTAL 1,782

CLASS A UHF STATIONS 386
CLASS A VHF STATIONS 19
TOTAL 405

UHF TRANSLATORS 2764
VHF TRANSLATORS 840
TOTAL 3604

UHF LOW POWER TV 1473
VHF LOW POWER TV 349
TOTAL 1,822


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Per the FCC, there are less than 1800 television stations in the US. 400 of those are educational television. A lot of these are cashing in on the auction because there is a lot of overlap and they are losing patrons, viewers, and government support. Among the 1400 commercial stations, a lot were bought/licensed in anticipation of the auction -- insider trading, if you will. WBIN, for instance, is just powerful enough to have to be carried on cable. They even advertise by their Comcast channel rather than their real or virtual channel. They have licen$ed but not built three LP $tation$. We have three different ION affiliates as well. No one will miss these.
> 
> UHF COMMERCIAL TV 1031
> VHF COMMERCIAL TV 356
> ...


Class A's are also eligible for the auction and must be included as well.

All Class A's are eligible for must carry status on cable.

In some markets, a Class A has one of the big 4 Networks.



wizwor said:


> There is a station in California that has packed 30ish stations into a single channel. Given the ratio of SD to HD content (never mind 4k), and the number of stations with no sub-channels, I'm confident this will work itself out. In Boston, we have WGBX, WGBH, and WENH stations just on the North Shore. Sub-channels vary, but there is no reason that two of these could not go away.


No TV Station has every attempted 30ish channel on 1 RF 19.3Mbps Frequency.

Simple math tells you that is technically impossible.



wizwor said:


> I don't know this. There are a lot of factors. Read the history of WMTW to see what is possible on VHF.


It is very common knowledge that VHF does not have the penetration into buildings as UHF. Virtually any joe can tell you that with their indoor antenna.

This is the reason the FCC wants TV OFF UHF and to give the frequencies to Wireless Data Providers, who have no use for VHF for the same reason.



wizwor said:


> The disruption will be dramatically less disruptive than the analog to digital change. OTA was not killed off by a change that rendered most television tuners obsolete. Moving a few channels from one frequency to another will not either. Moving within the same band, will go unnoticed.


Incorrect.

Losing RF Channels 51 to possibly 30 will force the remaining station closer together with more interference than before.

Furthermore, some station will be stranded on an island with Wireless Data operating on the Channels directly above and below them with no guard data. As you do not see channels in a market 31,32,33 - 32 would be well protected with 31 and 33 very far away.

After the repack, Data Providers could be operating locally on 31 and 33 causing massive interference for 32.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> This happened before in the analog to digital conversion. People will have to get VHF antennas. Some people will lose stations, some will gain them, most will just have a different antenna.


No one will GAIN stations.

Most every market will lose stations - with few exceptions like El Paso, Las Vegas, Anchorage, Fairbanks and Yakima. The entire list can be found in Post 101.

And as stations put more subchannels on their frequency, OTA Quality will drop dramatically.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

JoeKustra said:


> The Commission has announced the following totals for broadcast stations licensed as of December 31, 2015:
> 
> UHF COMMERCIAL TV 1031
> VHF COMMERCIAL TV 356
> ...


Thats just the start of it.

The only ones to disappear by end of year will be those who agreed to sell and sign off - which happens 90 days after end of auction - which WILL be in the hundreds and could theoretically be up to 1000+. However, Class A's are included in that number.

Then those who are moving from UHF to VHF will not start the move to 2017, so the 12/31/2016 will not give you an idea of where things are going to end up.

Most LPTVs and Translators that cannot find a new home in the VHF band (and again, worst reception) will be forced off the air over the next 48 months or less.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And considering hundreds - if not *1000+ TV stations will sign off the air by the end of this year*, everything anyone thinks about OTA is about to be turned upside down, regardless of if ATSC 3.0 happens or not (it will).
> 
> Bottom line, come January 2017, the OTA TV selection will be much smaller than it is today. As thus, with static/falling Retail Numbers and fast growing MSO numbers, TiVo realizes where it's future lies.


I see. Not 9 months but two years. That's about the same.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No TV Station has every attempted 30ish channel on 1 RF 19.3Mbps Frequency.
> 
> Simple math tells you that is technically impossible.


Technical considerations
Digital television supports multiple digital subchannels if the approximately 19.4Mbit/s (megabits per second) bitstream is divided. Therefore, station managers and broadcast engineers could run any of the following scenarios using one 6 MHz channel (note that the actual bitrate moves up and down, due to usage of variable bitrate encoding):

HDTV channels Subchannels
1× 1080i or 720p HDTV (19 Mbit/s) No additional subchannels.
1× 1080i or 720p HDTV (15 Mbit/s)	+ 1	480p or 480i SD subchannel (~3.8 Mbit/s)
1× 1080i or 720p HDTV (11 Mbit/s)	+ 1	720p HDTV (8 Mbit/s) subchannel
1× 1080i or 720p HDTV (11 Mbit/s)	+ 2	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~3.8 Mbit/s each)
1× 720p HDTV channel (8 Mbit/s)	+ 3	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~3.8 Mbit/s each)
2× 720p HDTV channels (9.6 Mbit/s each) No SD subchannels
2× 720p HDTV channels (7.8 Mbit/s each)	+ 1	480p or 480i SD subchannel (~3.8 Mbit/s)
No HDTV channels	+ 2	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~6 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 3	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~6 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 4	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~4.2 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 5	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~3.8 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 6	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~3.1 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 7	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~2.7 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 8	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~2.4 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 9	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~2.1 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+ 10	480p or 480i SD subchannels (~1.9 Mbit/s each)
No HDTV channels	+120	mono radio subchannels (~0.2 Mbit/s each)
With improvements in MPEG encoding, and tighter VBR encoding, more subchannels can be combined. 1×720p + 4×480i is becoming more common.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> It is very common knowledge that VHF does not have the penetration into buildings as UHF. Virtually any joe can tell you that with their indoor antenna.


My Y5-7-13 and Y20-7-13 are both in my attic. I have a recollection of rabbit ears sitting on top of televisions in my youth -- when VHF was all the rage.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Losing RF Channels 51 to possibly 30 will force the remaining station closer together with more interference than before.


My tvfool.com report tells me adjacent REAL channels get along just fine.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I think the biggest barriers to the adoption of OTA DVRs among cord cutters are a strong preference for streaming rather than OTA for their "appointment viewing" TV (i.e. the shows they can't miss but want to watch when it's convenient for them) and the easy access to those same OTA network shows from various sources, mainly Hulu, which gives you ABC, Fox, NBC and the CW shows for $8 a month, no contract. (You can also get various network content, including CBS and PBS, for free via Plex, although few know about that.)

Among folks I know in their 30s and 40s without cable/sat TV, they only want to fool with an OTA antenna that's small and can be easily set up near the TV (if at all). They don't pick up all the networks great but that's OK because OTA is free and it's good for local news and weather and mindless channel surfing for a few minutes. But the stuff they actually care about watching, they pay a little money for with Netflix, Hulu, etc. and watch that on their TV, laptop and/or mobile device. Paying money for a streaming service (content) is one thing but paying a monthly fee just to make the box work isn't something they want to do.

It would be interesting to see the demographic data but I'm guessing the market for OTA DVRs tilts toward the over-60 crowd who less embrace streaming and are more entrenched in the practice of recording shows, first with VCRs, then DVRs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

JoeKustra said:


> I see. Not 9 months but two years. That's about the same.


Again, as I said....hundreds IF NOT THOUSAND+ will be off the air by the end of the year.

Not 2 years.

And 1/1/2017 is less than 9 months away.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Technical considerations
> Digital television supports multiple digital subchannels if the approximately 19.4Mbit/s (megabits per second) bitstream is divided. Therefore, station managers and broadcast engineers could run any of the following scenarios using one 6 MHz channel (note that the actual bitrate moves up and down, due to usage of variable bitrate encoding):
> 
> HDTV channels Subchannels
> ...


Again, proving my point that 30ish TV stations are NOT possible.

The Audio needed for 30ish channels would take up the majority of the 19.3Mbps (or 19.4Mbps if you want to round it upward).



wizwor said:


> My Y5-7-13 and Y20-7-13 are both in my attic. I have a recollection of rabbit ears sitting on top of televisions in my youth -- when VHF was all the rage.


Power levels were reduced dramatically during the 2009 Digital Transition. What you were able to receive with Analog NTSC is totally different than today.

VHF power levels were cut in half (or more) in 2009, making it even harder to receive in the home.

UHF levels were cut by 80%.



wizwor said:


> My tvfool.com report tells me adjacent REAL channels get along just fine.


Your TV Fool report does not show REAL channels side surrounding other channels in the same market.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Here is a complete list of the opening price of every TV Station the FCC is interested in buying it's Spectrum back.

It gives the price for the station to sign off completely.

It then gives the price for the station to move from UHF or VHF/Hi to VHF Lo

It then gives the price for the station to move from UHF to VHF Hi

You will also note there are well over 2,000 stations listed, more than the 1,800 some are assuming total.

And this does NOT include the LPTV and Translators in use - which can be forced off the air at anytime between the end of the year and the next 48 months.

Again, don't believe me. Check the pdf file on the FCC website.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db1016/DA-15-1191A2.pdf


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Here's a  link showing the percentage of OTA vs cable vs ADS households in various communities across the country.

I see a high of 33% OTA for Boise ID and Fairbanks AK and a low of 3.2% OTA for the Hartford & New Haven area.

The average percentage of households on OTA seems like it would be in the low teens.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Here's a  link showing the percentage of OTA vs cable vs ADS households in various communities across the country.
> 
> I see a high of 33% OTA for Boise ID and Fairbanks AK and a low of 3.2% OTA for the Hartford & New Haven area.
> 
> The average percentage of households on OTA seems like it would be in the low teens.


WHOA! I never would have guessed that we'd have the lowest OTA in the US. The cable is pretty high too. The top cable markets are all Northeast, which makes sense because a lot of people here live in MDUs where they can't get DBS or OTA. I'm still surprised how low OTA is.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> WHOA! I never would have guessed that we'd have the lowest OTA in the US. The cable is pretty high too. The top cable markets are all Northeast, which makes sense because a lot of people here live in MDUs where they can't get DBS or OTA. I'm still surprised how low OTA is.


No secret but the highest OTA markets are also generally markets high in Hispanics.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No secret but the highest OTA markets are also generally markets high in Hispanics.


Seriously dude...

Rank	City	Percent Hispanic
1	Laredo, Texas	94.1
2	Brownsville, Texas	92.5
3	McAllen, Texas	81.3
4	El Paso, Texas	80.0
5	Santa Ana, California	79.0
6	Salinas, California	72.0
7	Pomona, California	71.3
8	Downey, California	70.4
9	Oxnard, California	70.1
10	Miami, Florida	69.4
11	El Monte, California	68.6
12	Norwalk, California	68.4
13	Ontario, California	64.3
14	Fontana, California	63.1
15	San Antonio, Texas	61.2
16	Pasadena, Texas	59.2
17	Corpus Christi, Texas	58.1
18	Elizabeth, New Jersey	56.7
19	San Bernardino, California	56.6
20	Chula Vista, California	55.6
21	Paterson, New Jersey	55.1
22	Moreno Valley, California	52.5
23	West Covina, California	52.5
24	Anaheim, California	52.4
25	Palmdale, California	52.4
26	Inglewood, California	49.2
27	Odessa, Texas	49.2
28	Los Angeles, California	48.4
29	Riverside, California	47.8
30	Pueblo, Colorado	45.9
31	Victorville, California	45.7
32	Escondido, California	45.1
33	Fresno, California	44.6
34	Albuquerque, New Mexico	44.0
35	Elgin, Illinois	43.6
36	Dallas, Texas	43.1
37	Bakersfield, California	42.2
38	Phoenix, Arizona	42.1
39	Houston, Texas	41.9
40	Irving, Texas	41.8
41	Hartford, Connecticut	41.4
42	Aurora, Illinois	41.3
43	Corona, California	40.9
44	Visalia, California	40.6
45	Long Beach, California	40.2
46	Grand Prairie, Texas	40.2
47	Tucson, Arizona	39.5
48	Garden Grove, California	39.0
49	Providence, Rhode Island	37.6
50	Hayward, California	37.6
51	Orange, California	37.5
52	Garland, Texas	37.3
53	North Las Vegas, Nevada	37.2
54	Pembroke Pines, Florida	37.2
55	Stockton, California	37.0
56	Miramar, Florida	36.6
57	Lancaster, California	36.5
58	Allentown, Pennsylvania	36.2
59	Glendale, Arizona	36.1
60	Midland, Texas	35.4
61	Austin, Texas	35.0
62	Richmond, California	34.9
63	Springfield, Massachusetts	34.8
64	Modesto, California	34.4
65	Denver, Colorado	34.1
66	Costa Mesa, California	34.0
67	Fort Worth, Texas	33.8
68	Pasadena, California	33.5
69	Oceanside, California	33.5
70	Bridgeport, Connecticut	33.3
71	Fullerton, California	33.0
72	Menifee, California	33.0
73	Rancho Cucamonga, California	32.5
74	Newark, New Jersey	31.9
75	San Buenaventura, California	31.7
76	San Jose, California	31.5
77	Lubbock, Texas	30.6
78	Las Vegas, Nevada	30.0

DMA Rank	DMA Name	% OTA	% Wired Cable	% ADS
107	Boise	33.3	16.7	50.3
202	Fairbanks	33.1	39.8	27.3
86	Harlingen-Wslco-Brnsvl-McA	27.1	39.3	34.3
163	Idaho Fals-Pocatllo(Jcksn)	26.4	21.8	52.0
186	Butte-Bozeman	25.7	34.6	39.9
205	Helena	25.5	44.0	30.6
111	Ft. Wayne	24.0	36.6	39.5
92	El Paso (Las Cruces)	23.2	41.9	35.4
164	Missoula	22.6	30.4	47.2
141	Duluth-Superior	22.3	34.0	43.8
48	Albuquerque-Santa Fe	22.0	27.1	51.3
123	Yakima-Pasco-Rchlnd-Knnwck	21.9	29.3	49.1
193	Twin Falls	21.6	25.1	53.4
35	Milwaukee	21.5	58.6	19.9
185	Grand Junction-Montrose	21.0	48.4	30.6
33	Kansas City	20.9	51.7	27.7
60	Tulsa	20.9	39.8	39.7
190	Bend, OR	20.5	49.5	30.1
68	Green Bay-Appleton	20.2	45.7	34.3
75	Springfield, MO	20.2	26.4	53.6
64	Dayton	20.1	53.5	26.4
96	South Bend-Elkhart	20.0	42.8	37.3
134	Wausau-Rhinelander	19.9	38.5	41.9
81	Madison	19.0	47.2	33.7
72	Des Moines-Ames	18.9	33.7	47.6
151	Joplin-Pittsburg	18.8	29.1	52.2
15	Minneapolis-St. Paul	18.8	49.2	32.2
5	Dallas-Ft. Worth	18.6	51.5	30.3
166	Yuma-El Centro	18.6	34.1	47.6
10	Houston	18.4	51.0	31.3
34	Salt Lake City	18.4	39.8	41.8
12	Phoenix (Prescott)	18.3	37.0	45.1
191	Great Falls	18.1	34.6	47.5
43	Oklahoma City	18.0	45.5	37.2
140	Medford-Klamath Falls	17.9	34.2	48.1
119	Eugene	17.7	46.2	36.3
144	Lubbock	17.7	42.4	40.2
73	Spokane	17.7	32.2	50.3
54	Fresno-Visalia	17.3	38.0	45.2
128	La Crosse-Eau Claire	17.3	46.9	35.9
39	Austin	17.2	57.8	25.5
153	Rochestr-Mason City-Austin	17.2	48.9	34.0
126	Bakersfield	16.8	45.7	37.9
195	Eureka	16.6	52.0	31.7
156	Bangor	16.4	37.3	46.4
183	Charlottesville	16.4	51.2	32.7
89	Colorado Springs-Pueblo	16.4	42.8	40.9
148	Anchorage	16.3	58.6	25.4
171	Rapid City	16.3	49.5	34.4
90	Cedar Rapids-Wtrlo-IWC&Dub	16.2	46.2	37.8
132	Chico-Redding	16.0	32.2	52.0
167	Billings	15.8	43.1	41.1
65	Wichita-Hutchinson Plus	15.8	50.9	33.6
70	Tucson (Sierra Vista)	15.7	42.7	42.0
196	Casper-Riverton	15.6	51.5	33.0
138	Columbia-Jefferson City	15.6	31.1	53.5
161	Sherman-Ada	15.6	23.3	61.4
162	Gainesville	15.5	45.9	38.7
74	Omaha	15.5	56.4	28.3
36	Cincinnati	15.4	56.5	28.2
100	Ft. Smith-Fay-Sprngdl-Rgrs	15.3	43.5	41.4
170	Quincy-Hannibal-Keokuk	15.2	36.4	48.7
209	North Platte	15.1	47.6	37.4
201	St. Joseph	15.0	44.7	40.4
135	Topeka	15.0	51.1	34.2
17	Denver	14.8	44.7	40.6
207	Juneau	14.8	64.4	20.8
113	Lansing	14.8	51.1	34.2
149	Sioux City	14.8	43.8	41.6
76	Rochester, NY	14.7	60.7	24.8
87	Waco-Temple-Bryan	14.5	43.2	42.5
21	St. Louis	14.4	50.7	35.0
3	Chicago	14.3	60.4	25.6
50	Memphis	14.3	43.8	41.9
32	San Antonio	14.3	53.4	33.0
2	Los Angeles	14.2	51.8	34.1
184	Laredo	14.1	58.8	27.7
117	Peoria-Bloomington	13.9	48.3	38.0
101	Davenport-R.Island-Moline	13.8	43.1	43.4
99	Greenville-N.Bern-Washngtn	13.8	49.1	37.3
24	Portland, OR	13.8	51.6	34.9
77	Toledo	13.8	56.4	29.9
105	Lincoln & Hastings-Krny	13.7	41.3	45.2
125	Monterey-Salinas	13.7	46.4	40.2
13	Detroit	13.3	65.2	21.6
136	Rockford	13.3	52.5	34.4
154	Panama City	13.2	50.1	36.8
150	Erie	13.1	45.9	41.2
106	Reno	13.1	44.9	42.3
200	Ottumwa-Kirksville	12.8	39.1	48.5
208	Alpena	12.7	54.3	33.1
78	Columbia, SC	12.7	48.7	38.8
41	Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk	12.6	54.6	33.1
27	Indianapolis	12.6	57.2	30.7
199	Mankato	12.6	61.9	25.7
115	Fargo-Valley City	12.5	52.6	35.1
25	Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)	12.5	53.2	34.5
20	Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto	12.4	46.7	41.3
182	Bowling Green	12.2	63.2	24.8
98	Burlington-Plattsburgh	12.2	49.4	38.6
197	Cheyenne-Scottsbluff	12.2	54.9	33.0
110	Sioux Falls(Mitchell)	12.2	54.1	33.9
155	Terre Haute	12.2	34.4	53.7
158	Biloxi-Gulfport	12.1	49.1	39.1
71	Flint-Saginaw-Bay City	12.1	55.9	32.1
139	Minot-Bsmrck-Dcknsn(Wlstn)	12.1	54.5	33.6
80	Portland-Auburn	12.1	59.5	28.6
165	Abilene-Sweetwater	12.0	32.9	55.3
103	Evansville	12.0	40.8	47.3
206	Presque Isle	12.0	42.9	45.3
114	Youngstown	12.0	57.8	30.4
112	Augusta-Aiken	11.8	47.8	40.7
22	Charlotte	11.8	52.5	36.4
88	Chattanooga	11.8	57.7	30.7
31	Columbus, OH	11.8	62.1	26.1
168	Hattiesburg-Laurel	11.7	37.8	50.8
16	Miami-Ft. Lauderdale	11.7	67.2	21.8
118	Traverse City-Cadillac	11.7	43.7	44.6
37	Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And	11.6	41.7	46.8
49	Louisville	11.5	56.2	32.4
83	Shreveport	11.4	28.1	60.9
127	Columbus, GA (Opelika, AL)	11.2	52.1	37.1
120	Macon	11.2	38.2	51.0
177	Watertown	11.2	56.1	33.0
69	Roanoke-Lynchburg	11.1	35.9	53.3
130	Wilmington	11.1	59.4	29.7
57	Little Rock-Pine Bluff	11.0	37.4	51.9
189	Meridian	11.0	30.6	58.7
6	San Francisco-Oak-San Jose	11.0	65.4	24.1
63	Lexington	10.9	41.5	47.7
181	Jonesboro	10.8	48.6	40.8
121	Lafayette, LA	10.8	53.7	35.7
203	Victoria	10.8	45.3	44.1
187	Lafayette, IN	10.7	60.9	28.7
58	Mobile-Pensacola (Ft Walt)	10.7	51.7	37.6
147	Wichita Falls & Lawton	10.7	30.7	58.9
46	Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem	10.6	50.3	39.3
178	Harrisonburg	10.6	51.2	38.4
188	Lima	10.6	63.8	25.7
18	Cleveland-Akron (Canton)	10.5	62.8	27.1
47	Jacksonville	10.5	60.7	29.2
142	Beaumont-Port Arthur	10.4	42.2	47.8
210	Glendive	10.4	60.5	29.6
131	Amarillo	10.3	39.3	50.8
85	Champaign&Sprngfld-Decatur	10.2	49.7	40.3
133	Columbus-Tupelo-W Pnt-Hstn	10.2	23.2	66.9
174	Lake Charles	10.2	55.1	35.1
109	Tyler-Longview(Lfkn&Ncgd)	10.2	35.8	54.3
79	Huntsville-Decatur (Flor)	10.1	49.7	40.5
56	Richmond-Petersburg	10.0	59.8	30.2
51	New Orleans	9.9	57.9	32.8
26	Baltimore	9.8	74.1	16.6
84	Syracuse	9.8	71.8	18.4
9	Atlanta	9.7	55.8	34.6
82	Paducah-Cape Girard-Harsbg	9.7	35.2	55.9
173	Dothan	9.6	43.0	47.6
102	Myrtle Beach-Florence	9.6	58.3	32.5
152	Albany, GA	9.5	37.9	53.1
129	Corpus Christi	9.5	49.5	41.4
159	Binghamton	9.4	61.4	29.4
95	Jackson, MS	9.3	40.6	50.4
40	Las Vegas	9.3	53.5	38.8
122	Montgomery-Selma	9.2	51.9	39.2
97	Tri-Cities, TN-VA	9.1	52.0	39.0
176	Jackson, TN	9.0	50.4	40.7
143	Salisbury	9.0	65.2	26.0
108	Tallahassee-Thomasville	9.0	48.9	42.3
180	Marquette	8.9	52.1	39.2
62	Knoxville	8.8	58.7	32.9
19	Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn	8.8	68.8	22.8
94	Charleston, SC	8.6	61.7	29.8
124	SantaBarbra-SanMar-SanLuOb	8.4	50.9	41.4
116	Springfield-Holyoke	8.4	76.6	15.1
157	Wheeling-Steubenville	8.4	53.1	38.6
145	Odessa-Midland	8.3	50.4	41.6
61	Ft. Myers-Naples	8.2	62.6	30.5
11	Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)	8.1	77.2	15.0
137	Monroe-El Dorado	7.9	35.5	57.3
194	Parkersburg	7.8	62.8	29.6
179	Alexandria, LA	7.7	45.4	47.4
91	Savannah	7.7	49.1	43.7
44	Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York	7.5	65.5	27.1
175	Elmira (Corning)	7.4	57.0	35.8
4	Philadelphia	7.2	80.2	12.9
59	Albany-Schenectady-Troy	7.0	73.2	19.9
198	San Angelo	6.9	52.0	41.5
172	Utica	6.9	66.2	27.1
93	Baton Rouge	6.8	64.8	28.7
192	Greenwood-Greenville	6.8	38.7	55.2
29	Nashville	6.8	53.5	39.9
42	Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws	6.8	66.2	27.2
55	Wilkes Barre-Scranton-Hztn	6.8	56.1	37.4
67	Charleston-Huntington	6.5	48.0	45.6
14	Seattle-Tacoma	6.5	68.1	25.4
53	Buffalo	6.4	67.1	27.0
66	Honolulu	6.3	82.7	11.1
146	Palm Springs	6.3	64.0	30.2
204	Zanesville	6.3	56.8	37.2
7	Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)	6.2	74.8	19.3
28	San Diego	6.1	72.6	21.7
45	Birmingham (Ann and Tusc)	6.0	48.6	45.5
52	Providence-New Bedford	6.0	84.4	10.3
169	Clarksburg-Weston	5.9	39.4	55.1
160	Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill	5.8	50.5	43.9
104	Johnstown-Altoona-St Colge	5.5	51.1	43.6
1	New York	5.3	84.9	10.4
38	West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce	4.6	75.8	21.4
23	Pittsburgh	4.5	71.3	24.4
8	Boston (Manchester)	3.7	84.1	12.4
30	Hartford & New Haven	3.2	82.9	14.4


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> WHOA! I never would have guessed that we'd have the lowest OTA in the US. The cable is pretty high too. The top cable markets are all Northeast, which makes sense because a lot of people here live in MDUs where they can't get DBS or OTA. I'm still surprised how low OTA is.


Kind of surprised to see Boston at the bottom of the list too.

I would love to see additional data in this study. For instance, do DMA's with high OTA have higher cost, less competition, less leisure time, less disposable income, more favorable terrain, poor internet access, satellite limitations, more broadcasters, etc.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

Here's my take. I think I probably just bought my last Tivo and DVR. I got a Bolt in December. As I think about it, it's because streaming just isn't quite there yet. But it almost is. Hulu and CBS All access basically cover everything OTA for under $20/mo. The problem with Hulu still though is that you don't have all the current season available. At most you get the past 5 episodes and frequently less then that. This prevents being able to watch a lot later, you kinda got to keep up with it. And this is what makes having the OTA DVR for me still valuable.

For example, Agent Carter on ABC. I've got the whole season recorded on the Tivo but haven't watched it yet. Will binge them all soon. But couldn't do that just yet with Hulu because half the season has already fallen off. Once that minor issue gets resolved then frankly I could sub to just Hulu and CBS and not even need an antenna for the OTA networks. We're getting close.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> Seriously dude...
> 
> Rank	City	Percent Hispanic
> 1	Laredo, Texas	94.1
> ...


Sorry, but you cannot compare city population to TV DMA population.

The city of Miami might be 69% Hispanic, but add in Broward County, the rest of Dade County, the Keys etc and the results are much different.

Also, you are comparing Total Population to TV Households - which cannot be done either.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> WHOA! I never would have guessed that we'd have the lowest OTA in the US. The cable is pretty high too. The top cable markets are all Northeast, which makes sense because a lot of people here live in MDUs where they can't get DBS or OTA. I'm still surprised how low OTA is.


Those low OTA/high cable percentage communities also coincide with FIOS territory aka customers have a choice of 2 cable providers. In the Boston area I had a choice between Comcast and FIOS and so I had some pretty good deals.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No secret but the highest OTA markets are also generally markets high in Hispanics.


Thats because their signal strenghts are higher, and weather ladies even curvier than Dylan Dryer.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

foghorn2 said:


> Thats because their signal strenghts are higher, and weather ladies even curvier than Dylan Dryer.


No idea what you are talking about but one simply needs to examine the Top 10 Markets in terms of Hispanic TVHH v Total TVHH and the Top 10 average 16% OTA while the Bottom 10 Hispanic percentage of Total TVHH is 10% OTA.

The Top 20 Markets in terms of Hispanic TVHH v Total TVHH is 14.9% OTA while the Bottom 20 Hispanic percentage is 10.2% OTA.

The Top 30 Markets in terms of Hispanic TVHH v Total TVHH is 14.2% OTA while the Bottom 20 Hispanic percentage is 11.1% OTA.

And so on and so on.

The Top 5
Laredo, TX 94.1% Hispanic and 14.1% OTA
Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen, TX 87.13% Hispanic and 27.1% OTA
El Paso, TX 72.01% Hispanic and 23.2% OTA
Yuma, AZ 62.16% Hispanic and 18.6% OTA
Corpus Christi, TX 56.54% Hispanic and 9.5% OTA

The Bottom 5
Bluefield-Buckley, WV 0.86% Hispanic and 5.8% OTA
Charleston-Huntington, WV 0.81% Hispanic and 6.5% OTA
Parkersburg, WV 0.77% Hispanic and 7.8% OTA
Presque Isle, ME 0.67% Hispanic and 12.0% OTA
Zanesville, OH 0.57% Hispanic and 6.3% OTA

One could argue Hispanics have no need to pay a high rate for 200+ English speaking channels.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

trip1eX said:


> Those low OTA/high cable percentage communities also coincide with FIOS territory aka customers have a choice of 2 cable providers. In the Boston area I had a choice between Comcast and FIOS and so I had some pretty good deals.


And Verizon FiOS has been accused many times of Red lining.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No secret but the highest OTA markets are also generally markets high in Hispanics.


We have a pretty significant Puerto Rican population here. Not like the Mexican population in Texas and California, but still.



wizwor said:


> Kind of surprised to see Boston at the bottom of the list too.


I'm less surprised with Boston, as you've got more MDUs, and the 'burbs are wealthy and wired with FIOS. Not surprised about NY, as NYC has a huge population in MDUs. Hartford-New Haven is more surprising. I'm not surprised that the percentage is low because of terrain and income, but I'm surprised that it's *that* low.



> I would love to see additional data in this study. For instance, do DMA's with high OTA have higher cost, less competition, less leisure time, less disposable income, more favorable terrain, poor internet access, satellite limitations, more broadcasters, etc.


Yeah, that would be really interesting.



trip1eX said:


> Those low OTA/high cable percentage communities also coincide with FIOS territory aka customers have a choice of 2 cable providers. In the Boston area I had a choice between Comcast and FIOS and so I had some pretty good deals.


Except for Hartford-New Haven, which has zero FIOS.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> I'm less surprised with Boston, as you've got more MDUs, and the 'burbs are wealthy and wired with FIOS. Not surprised about NY, as NYC has a huge population in MDUs.


That's my speculation as well. I commute 75 minutes from New Hampshire to Boston with about 80% of that on residential streets. On that ride, the density of antennas is significantly higher than 4/100 homes. Given the possibility that many antennas are in attics (mine) or on televisions (in-laws), I would have expected to see a number closer to 10%. If the estimates are accurate, then OTA is dropping off and, on my commute, antennas are popping up like daisies in spring. Then again, the North Shore is probably the best candidate for OTA given the proximity to Boston broadcasters and the absence of FiOS in New Hampshire.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> That's my speculation as well. I commute 75 minutes from New Hampshire to Boston with about 80% of that on residential streets. On that ride, the density of antennas is significantly higher than 4/100 homes. Given the possibility that many antennas are in attics (mine) or on televisions (in-laws), I would have expected to see a number closer to 10%. If the estimates are accurate, then OTA is dropping off and, on my commute, antennas are popping up like daisies in spring. Then again, the North Shore is probably the best candidate for OTA given the proximity to Boston broadcasters and the absence of FiOS in New Hampshire.


HOLY **** that's a commute! These numbers may be hosed up then. Are you seeing the new "HDTV" antennas, or the big old ones? Of course there is no such thing as an HDTV antenna or an analog antenna, but a lot of the big old ones may be out of service, and no one bothers to take them down until the roof needs to be re-done.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> We have a pretty significant Puerto Rican population here. Not like the Mexican population in Texas and California, but still.


Hartford has 945,250 TVHH and 106,000 are Hispanic for 11.21% Hispanic TV Households.

Tyler, TX is 11.71% and Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX is less at 9.52%, and Sherman Tx is only 6.0%, so not all of Texas is that high.

Chico, CA is 11.41% and Eureka, CA is only 8.19%, so again, markets are very different.

What is interesting is Wired Cable subs are pretty consistent independent of Hispanics.

However, ADS (think DBS especially) has slightly more subs in Hispanic markets than non-Hispanic Markets, probably because of the large Hispanic Program Bundles Dish and DirecTV offer compared to most Cable Systems.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> HOLY **** that's a commute! These numbers may be hosed up then. Are you seeing the new "HDTV" antennas, or the big old ones? Of course there is no such thing as an HDTV antenna or an analog antenna, but a lot of the big old ones may be out of service, and no one bothers to take them down until the roof needs to be re-done.


First, there is no such thing as an HDTV antenna. Antennas tune frequencies. It doesn't matter if the signal is HD or SD or if it is analog or digital. Those old antennas were VHF and UHF just like the ones we buy today. They tended to focus less on UHF than VHF then and a lot are UHF only now. Also, VHF low antennas are very rare and those are the biggest VHF elements. So, my y5-7-13 and y10-7-13 are fairly traditional looking antennas except that they are smaller. I only say this because people should try the antenna that is already on the roof or in the attic before they spend on a modern antenna.

That said, most of the antennas are easily recognizable as modern...except for this parabolic one that I covet. The funny thing is that they crop up in bunches and antennas in any given location tend to be the same. I assume this is the word of mouth effect.

I think it is possible that some of the antennas could be out of service. Even if I just bought an antenna -- especially if i hired someone to install it on the roof -- and gave up on broadcast television, I am not sure I would take it down. We had satellite dishes on the roof for nearly a decade after cancelling Dish.

The most common antenna I see is the HD stacker...










I see a lot that look like this too...










I hardly ever see DB8 type antennas or 91XG style antennas which are highly regarded. Both of these are small enough to go in an attic.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I'd expect flat and treeless terrain to more OTA users than hilly or mountainous regions.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Are there any VHF antennas in stock ? I was all set to buy a y5-7-13 or a y10-7-13 but antennacraft is out of business. I am using an HBU22 which works pretty good, but RF11 (Fox) has a few tears per hour and RF9 is unwatchable, though that is not great loss.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

jth tv said:


> Are there any VHF antennas in stock ? I was all set to buy a y5-7-13 or a y10-7-13 but antennacraft is out of business. I am using an HBU22 which works pretty good, but RF11 (Fox) has a few tears per hour and RF9 is unwatchable, though that is not great loss.


http://www.mcmelectronics.com/produ...3&cadevice=c&gclid=CO7r9ujMtssCFRCOaQodXlUOcg


----------



## skypros (May 19, 2015)

wizwor....... It looks like MCM Electronics is a *GREAT* Off Air supplier.... with very good prices!!!
Thank You for posting it.



wizwor said:


> http://www.mcmelectronics.com/produ...3&cadevice=c&gclid=CO7r9ujMtssCFRCOaQodXlUOcg


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jth tv said:


> I'd expect flat and treeless terrain to more OTA users than hilly or mountainous regions.


Ugh, trees! I live in a neighborhood with lots of big mature trees. A slight breeze through their branches and I have multipath interference on my ABC channel. Big wind causes problems on other UHF channels. VHF channels are immune to all but gale force winds.

I have a Roamio OTA but if I want to watch every episode of an ABC series, like American Crime, I basically need Hulu. At least 1/3 of my ABC recordings are glitchy enough that I can't stand to watch them.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Ugh, trees! I live in a neighborhood with lots of big mature trees. A slight breeze through their branches and I have multipath interference on my ABC channel. Big wind causes problems on other UHF channels. VHF channels are immune to all but gale force winds.
> 
> I have a Roamio OTA but if I want to watch every episode of an ABC series, like American Crime, I basically need Hulu. At least 1/3 of my ABC recordings are glitchy enough that I can't stand to watch them.


 Wind and UHF I know what you're going through.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Ugh, trees! I live in a neighborhood with lots of big mature trees. A slight breeze through their branches and I have multipath interference on my ABC channel. Big wind causes problems on other UHF channels. VHF channels are immune to all but gale force winds.
> 
> I have a Roamio OTA but if I want to watch every episode of an ABC series, like American Crime, I basically need Hulu. At least 1/3 of my ABC recordings are glitchy enough that I can't stand to watch them.


My house is surrounded by red pines. They are about 50-75' tall. The red pine is a skinny tree with a tuft of branches at the top. They catch the wind and sway like crazy. Because I live on a hill, there is no way to shoot over or under those tufts. I have found that a DB8 type antenna works better than a Yagi style antenna on a breezy day. I suspect this is because of the large reception area.









91XG (yagi)









DB8​


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> My house is surrounded by red pines. They are about 50-75' tall. The red pine is a skinny tree with a tuft of branches at the top. They catch the wind and sway like crazy. Because I live on a hill, there is no way to shoot over or under those tufts. I have found that a DB8 type antenna works better than a Yagi style antenna on a breezy day. I suspect this is because of the large reception area.


Thanks. I've tried several different antennas and ultimately settled on a DB2. I did try a DB4 but it did not give me better results. (BTW, I live anywhere from 6 to 13 miles from the towers. The ABC station which is most troublesome has their tower only 6 miles away. The PBS station -- which is VHF and relatively weaker -- has their tower in the same spot. Flawless.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Hartford has 945,250 TVHH and 106,000 are Hispanic for 11.21% Hispanic TV Households.


So significant like I said. You can hand pick a small market out of many states and pretty much get whatever result you want. My point is that we do have a significant hispanic population, mostly from Puerto Rico, although some from Mexico. What is great is hearing someone from Puerto Rico trying to talk to someone from Mexico. Puerto Rican Spanish is really different from every other spanish dialect. One time I was driving in the car with a friend who is Columbian, and I put the local spanish radio station on from Providence, and he couldn't figure out what the heck they were saying for quite a while, because it was Puerto Rican. Pretty funny and very interesting. For some reason I find languages and dialects fascinating, but I digress.



wizwor said:


> First, there is no such thing as an HDTV antenna. Antennas tune frequencies. It doesn't matter if the signal is HD or SD or if it is analog or digital.


Hence the air quotes about an "HDTV antenna".



> That said, most of the antennas are easily recognizable as modern...except for this parabolic one that I covet. The funny thing is that they crop up in bunches and antennas in any given location tend to be the same. I assume this is the word of mouth effect.


Or what a store stock that works in that town or area.



> I think it is possible that some of the antennas could be out of service. Even if I just bought an antenna -- especially if i hired someone to install it on the roof -- and gave up on broadcast television, I am not sure I would take it down. We had satellite dishes on the roof for nearly a decade after cancelling Dish.


Yeah, I'm wondering the same. Maybe somebody moved or whatever. I see tons of Phase III DirecTV dishes and DISH 500's. I suppose a few of them could be hooked up to some grandma who doesn't have HDTV, but most of the are out of service, and no one takes them down. Ugly as heck, since they are clearly old and out of date.



> The most common antenna I see is the HD stacker...


You must be pretty deep reception to see antennas like that. The few I see are most often DB8 or DB4-like.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Thanks. I've tried several different antennas and ultimately settled on a DB2. I did try a DB4 but it did not give me better results. (BTW, I live anywhere from 6 to 13 miles from the towers. The ABC station which is most troublesome has their tower only 6 miles away. The PBS station -- which is VHF and relatively weaker -- has their tower in the same spot. Flawless.)


Is it possible you are overdriving the tuners? At 6-13 miles, I might try something like this...

http://www.amazon.com/HDFrequency-C...072&sr=8-1&keywords=hd+frequency+cable+cutter


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

skypros said:


> wizwor....... It looks like MCM Electronics is a *GREAT* Off Air supplier.... with very good prices!!!
> Thank You for posting it.


I meant to post two links...

http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/30-2475
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/30-2476

The -76 has a couple more db gain and half the horizontal beam width. Worth $10 more, IMHO, if you are trying to pull a fringe station. I have all but talked myself into getting a pair assuming I can extend my y10-7-13 with part of one of these or the y5-7-13 to improve my Heroes and Icons experience.

Another source of VHF antennas...









http://www.abilityhdtv.com/product-...CH7_13_13db_high_gain_yagi_antenna-pid65.html









http://www.abilityhdtv.com/product-...ch7_13_10db_high_gain_yagi_antenna-pid66.html

VHF high-band (band III)
Channel	Lower edge	Video carrier	DTV carrier	Audio carrier	Upper edge
7	174	175.25	174.31	179.75	180
8	180	181.25	180.31	185.75	186
9	186	187.25	186.31	191.75	192
10	192	193.25	192.31	197.75	198
11	198	199.25	198.31	203.75	204
12	204	205.25	204.31	209.75	210
13	210	211.25	210.31	215.75	216


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Is it possible you are overdriving the tuners? At 6-13 miles, I might try something like this...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/HDFrequency-C...072&sr=8-1&keywords=hd+frequency+cable+cutter


Thanks, but I've tried lots of stuff (although, no, not that specific antenna). Not amplifying the signal results in slightly worse results, regardless of the dozen or so different antennas I've tried. So overdriving does not appear to be the problem.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I've tried lots of stuff


Have you tried running a commercially terminated coax directly from the antenna to one television? Do you have any way of measuring signal strength, signal quality, and symbol quality as you experiment?

from http://www.hdtvprimer.com/antennas/basics.html



> Signal amplifiers are supposed to be linear. That is, the output is a magnified but otherwise unaltered version of the input. But too much signal can make an amplifier non-linear, usually clipping off the tops and bottoms of the sine waves. When this happens, all channels are affected, not just the one that is too strong. In fact, the too strong signal is usually not a TV station. A close FM station or police station is more likely.
> 
> If you add a good amplifier to your antenna system and your results get worse instead of better then you have overload, and you need to reconsider more carefully what you are doing.
> 
> If you are close to an FM station, there might be a narrow range between too much and too little amplifier gain. (Too little gain = dropouts, too much gain = overload.) You can make that range larger by using an amplifier with an FM trap or by using a more directional antenna. VHF preamplifiers usually include FM traps that can optionally be disabled. Freestanding FM traps are also available. FM traps can either cover the entire FM band or can be single frequency traps that you tune to the offending station. The former are less effective and tend to attenuate channel 6. If the FM station is close enough you might need more than one FM trap.












Here I show my TVFool report next to two instances of the HDHR Config Utility. As I adjust the antenna to pull in WMUR, I can easily see the impact of the change on WBZ.

Once you have your antenna pointed, the HDHR is a great tool for understanding performance issues. When I am having a bad reception day, I pop up the Config Utility to see what is going on.

http://www.ebay.com/dsc/i.html?_fro...313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_osacat=0&_odkw=HDHR3-US


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> Have you tried running a commercially terminated coax directly from the antenna to one television? Do you have any way of measuring signal strength, signal quality, and symbol quality as you experiment?


Yes. And the only measurement tool I have is the diagnostics screen on my Roamio OTA.

After months of trying (I'm ashamed to even estimate the number of hours), I've just had to accept that my OTA reception is what it is: good enough for the most part and, when paired with a TiVo and a few streaming services, still a much better value than cable/satellite TV while giving me a more desirable set of viewing options at any given moment. But, of course, that's just me. YMMV.

Thanks for the friendly feedback, though!


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Yeah, thanks for the information, it will be very useful.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> So significant like I said. You can hand pick a small market out of many states and pretty much get whatever result you want. My point is that we do have a significant hispanic population, mostly from Puerto Rico, although some from Mexico. What is great is hearing someone from Puerto Rico trying to talk to someone from Mexico. Puerto Rican Spanish is really different from every other spanish dialect. One time I was driving in the car with a friend who is Columbian, and I put the local spanish radio station on from Providence, and he couldn't figure out what the heck they were saying for quite a while, because it was Puerto Rican. Pretty funny and very interesting. For some reason I find languages and dialects fascinating, but I digress.


As that is only 0.72% of the Hispanic Households in the USA, clearly we have different meanings of significant.

Quite frankly, you sound like the O.J. Simpson question at the end of the Bronco "chase", "What are all these n..... doing in Brentwood"? His words, not mine.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. And the only measurement tool I have is the diagnostics screen on my Roamio OTA.
> 
> After months of trying (I'm ashamed to even estimate the number of hours), I've just had to accept that my OTA reception is what it is: good enough for the most part and, when paired with a TiVo and a few streaming services, still a much better value than cable/satellite TV while giving me a more desirable set of viewing options at any given moment. But, of course, that's just me. YMMV.
> 
> Thanks for the friendly feedback, though!


You're welcome. If you would like to post or pm your tvfool report, I would be happy to look at it. But you are correct -- at some point the cost of improvement is unjustifiable.

I'm glad the conversation came up. Our discussion caused me to take a second look at the 30-2476 and I ended up buying four plus a 4x combiner (and a few other things).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As that is only 0.72% of the Hispanic Households in the USA, clearly we have different meanings of significant.
> 
> Quite frankly, you sound like the O.J. Simpson question at the end of the Bronco "chase", "What are all these n..... doing in Brentwood"? His words, not mine.


In CT and RI, our hispanic population is majority Puertorriqueño. In most of the rest of the country, it is majority Mexicano with the exception of parts of Florida that are majority Cubano.

I'm assuming your 0.72% reference is Columbiano, which is irrelevant. My point was that Puerto Rican Spanish is really different, and a Mexicano wouldn't be any better off than the Culumbiano.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> In CT and RI, our hispanic population is majority Puertorriqueño. In most of the rest of the country, it is majority Mexicano with the exception of parts of Florida that are majority Cubano.
> 
> I'm assuming your 0.72% reference is Columbiano, which is irrelevant. My point was that Puerto Rican Spanish is really different, and a Mexicano wouldn't be any better off than the Culumbiano.


No, the 0.72% is ALL Hispanics.....the percent of total 100% Hispanic TV Households IN THE USA that are in the Hartford TV DMA.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No, the 0.72% is ALL Hispanics.....the percent of total 100% Hispanic TV Households IN THE USA that are in the Hartford TV DMA.


What? That's a nonsensical statistic. The relevant measure would be what percentage of the population *in Hartford-New Haven* is hispanic.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> What? That's a nonsensical statistic. The relevant measure would be what percentage of the population *in Hartford-New Haven* is hispanic.


And again, we have seen your point of reference. 10% is significant to you, even though that is less than USA In general.

To most of America, 10% in a minority is almost non-existent.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And again, we have seen your point of reference. 10% is significant to you, even though that is less than USA In general.
> 
> To most of America, 10% in a minority is almost non-existent.


That's significant anywhere. Even if it's not as much as in other places. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

skypros said:


> wizwor....... It looks like MCM Electronics is a *GREAT* Off Air supplier.... with very good prices!!!
> Thank You for posting it.


My first MCM order arrived today. I am very impressed. The order consisted of the following...

4x30-2476 - Deep Fringe Directional Antenna VHF-Hi HDTV 174 - 230MHz $28.35 (Reg: $34.99) $113.40
1x33-2196 - High Shield Antenna 1GHz Splitter / Combiner - 4-way $3.59 (Reg: $3.99) $3.59
2x30-1030 - Guy Wire Clamp up to 1 1/2'' Mast $3.70 (Reg: $4.11) $7.40
1x33-2230 - UHF - VHF Antenna Combiner $6.29 (Reg: $6.99) $6.29

Total shipping was $9.99 and the total cost (after applying 10% off code from retailmenot) was $140.67.

So, $140 for four antennas, a 4x splitter, a pair of guy wire clamps, and a UVSJ.

The antennas are 7' long fully assembled. Assembly was very easy. For all but one of the reflectors, all of the directors and the driven element, you simply loosen a butterfly nut, rotate the rod, and screw it back down. The screws have a rubber washer which prevents the nut from accidentally falling off -- which would be good if you were assembling outside. The two beam sections and the reflector assembly attach with more screws and nuts -- all hardware being in the holes they would assemble to out of the box -- no bag of parts to match up. The mast clamp hardware was also pre-assembled and tied together with a twist tie. The balun is pre-attached to the beam.

It's still a little chilly to work in the attic comfortably. I'll compare this to a y10-7-13 when things warm up a bit. I am also going to add one or two of the front sections to an full antenna to max out the directors at 16 -- just to see if that adds much gain...

http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/antennas/yagi/yagi-antenna-gain.php

Anyway, MCM looks like a good retailer and the 30-2476 looks like a solid antenna.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

This tread is becoming Antenna Porn!

More antenna links and pictures please!


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

foghorn2 said:


> This tread is becoming Antenna Porn!
> 
> More antenna links and pictures please!


Sorry, some times I get carried away


----------



## KSOC Kid (Nov 19, 2015)

foghorn2 said:


> This tread is becoming Antenna Porn!
> 
> More antenna links and pictures please!


When I switched from cable tv to satellite in 2008 I was "that guy" checking out everyone's roof/yard to see if they had a dish/antenna/cable. I had cable since 1970 so satellite was so foreign to me but very intriguing. I don't know why but I've been fascinated with pulling signals out of the sky since then. Switched to antenna in Fall '15 now looking at others antenna's. When I see roofs without any I used to assume cable. But now I know there are folks like me who have their antenna hanging in their attic (mine) or by the tv. I love antenna pictures. No, my wife does not understand this or my love of cooking with charcoal or what kind of grill one uses. She doesn't make fun because she benefits from both my quirks. I just outed myself.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Maybe this forum needs an 'antenna porn' topic? There is nothing more important or less understood in the OTA business. Most people do not even understand that UHF antennas are different than VHF antennas or why that matters.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

KSOC Kid said:


> When I switched from cable tv to satellite in 2008 I was "that guy" checking out everyone's roof/yard to see if they had a dish/antenna/cable. I had cable since 1970 so satellite was so foreign to me but very intriguing. I don't know why but I've been fascinated with pulling signals out of the sky since then. Switched to antenna in Fall '15 now looking at others antenna's. When I see roofs without any I used to assume cable. But now I know there are folks like me who have their antenna hanging in their attic (mine) or by the tv. I love antenna pictures. No, my wife does not understand this or my love of cooking with charcoal or what kind of grill one uses. She doesn't make fun because she benefits from both my quirks. I just outed myself.


I've always looked around at dishes when out and about. It's hard to tell what people actually have. I lived in a house with an SL5 that was there from when the owner liver there, but we had Comcast. I'd hope all the Phase III's and DISH 500's are out of service, but maybe some grandma somewhere is watching TV on her 27" Trinitron, unaware that the world has moved on to HD, Hopper, Genie, SWiM, and now 4k on DirecTV.


----------



## Imageek2 (Aug 12, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I've always looked around at dishes when out and about. It's hard to tell what people actually have.


I still have my DirecTV dish on our roof even though we switched to OTA and streaming 8 months ago. I mounted our antenna on the DirecTV mast just under the dish while we were switching and haven't had a reason to take the dish down.

P.S. here is a pic of the antenna I have, works very well.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Imageek2 said:


> I still have my DirecTV dish on our roof even though we switched to OTA and streaming 8 months ago. I mounted our antenna on the DirecTV mast just under the dish while we were switching and haven't had a reason to take the dish down. P.S. here is a pic of the antenna I have, works very well.


You also need to update your signature. You haven't taken directv down from it, either.

😀


----------



## Oaklander (Mar 24, 2016)

King3pj said:


> I wasn't trying to say I could use both at the same time. I was saying I can, and have, switched back and forth from having an active cable subscription and OTA only depending on what kinds of offers Charter is willing to offer me.
> 
> My point was that I am free to cancel cable whenever I want to go back to OTA without having to change my hardware and lose all the shows and movies I recorded when I had cable.
> 
> ...


I don't want to horn in on this thread but it seems appropriate. To mods please move to different thread if I am off-topic...

After my contentious relationship with ATT Uverse I am testing out cord-cutting but may move back to a provider at some point if cord-cutting does not work.

Can I buy the Tivo Bolt to record 3 OTA channels at the same time? I mostly watch Network TV and occasional go to Cable, and even more rarely to Pay TV. Since some of the shows I watch are programmed against each other I need to be able to record two and in some occasions three shows at the same time. If I want some sports, I may get that SlingTV from DISH for $20 or I may not.

I moved directly from my old ReplayTV (anybody remember that?) to Uverse. I am familiar with TiVo and may grumble but will pay for reliability. I hasten to add I am am also looking at Tablo and Channel Master.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Oaklander said:


> I don't want to horn in on this thread but it seems appropriate. To mods please move to different thread if I am off-topic...
> 
> After my contentious relationship with ATT Uverse I am testing out cord-cutting but may move back to a provider at some point if cord-cutting does not work.
> 
> ...


The bolt can either be set up to record OTA or Cable, but not both at the same time. The Dual tuner premiere was the last Tivo that could be set up to record both cable and OTA.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Oaklander said:


> I moved directly from my old ReplayTV (anybody remember that?) to Uverse. I am familiar with TiVo and may grumble but will pay for reliability. I hasten to add I am am also looking at Tablo and Channel Master.


That the first time I've seen Channel Master (DVR+) and reliability so close to each other.  Here's some good reading material: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/42-hdtv-recorders/1481183-channel-master-dvr-owners-thread.html


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

Oaklander said:


> I don't want to horn in on this thread but it seems appropriate. To mods please move to different thread if I am off-topic...
> 
> After my contentious relationship with ATT Uverse I am testing out cord-cutting but may move back to a provider at some point if cord-cutting does not work.
> 
> ...


As mentioned, the Bolt is either OTA or Cable but not both at the same time. Either way it has 4 tuners so recording 4 OTA at the same time is not an issue.


----------



## Oaklander (Mar 24, 2016)

shwru980r said:


> The bolt can either be set up to record OTA or Cable, but not both at the same time. The Dual tuner premiere was the last Tivo that could be set up to record both cable and OTA.





bonscott87 said:


> As mentioned, the Bolt is either OTA or Cable but not both at the same time. Either way it has 4 tuners so recording 4 OTA at the same time is not an issue.


Thank you shwru980r and bonscott87. Just so I move on with this project. All I need is the Bolt and an HD Antenna to test this model and since Tivo includes a 1 year service there should be no other cost until year 2? Am I correct in this assumption?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Oaklander said:


> Thank you shwru980r and bonscott87. Just so I move on with this project. All I need is the Bolt and an HD Antenna to test this model and since Tivo includes a 1 year service there should be no other cost until year 2? Am I correct in this assumption?


I guess you already know that OTA is a viable solution in your location? You can check the various web sites, or walk around the block and see how many outdoor antennae you count.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

Oaklander said:


> All I need is the Bolt and an *HD Antenna * to test this model


You don't need a special "HD" antenna. Any regular TV antenna will work. If you have a pair of old rabbit ears, they'll probably work. Sometimes Goodwill will have antennas back with their extensive selection of CRT TVs.

If you buy a new one, find one in a box that's easily opened and resealed so you can return it if you don't get good reception.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Oaklander said:


> All I need is the Bolt and an HD Antenna


I'll help. As a rough guess, what is your zipcode?


----------



## Oaklander (Mar 24, 2016)

JoeKustra said:


> That the first time I've seen Channel Master (DVR+) and reliability so close to each other.  Here's some good reading material: (link removed, I (Oaklander) am a Newbie)
> 
> I did see your "Like" for HoustonPerson's wish list. I still have not plowed through all the posts but 387 pages made my eyes glaze over so I waiting for a rainy day to read 'em all.


----------



## Oaklander (Mar 24, 2016)

JoeKustra said:


> I guess you already know that OTA is a viable solution in your location? You can check the various web sites, or walk around the block and see how many outdoor antennae you count.


Believe it or not, zero antennas but I'll look around. TVFool says I'll get a bunch even from an indoor antenna. I



warrenn said:


> You don't need a special "HD" antenna. Any regular TV antenna will work. If you have a pair of old rabbit ears, they'll probably work. Sometimes Goodwill will have antennas back with their extensive selection of CRT TVs.
> 
> If you buy a new one, find one in a box that's easily opened and resealed so you can return it if you don't get good reception.


I got a Winegard Flatwave FL-5000 from my good friends at Amazon Prime, should have it tomorrow. It was recommended on Reddit's cordcutter forum by a guy in Berkeley. I can always return it. Apparently I needed a VHF/UHF antenna and I can always return it if it did not work.



JoeKustra said:


> I'll help. As a rough guess, what is your zipcode?


 I am in 94606.

If I get a good signal I am all set.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Oaklander said:


> I am in 94606.
> 
> If I get a good signal I am all set.


You should get a good signal with even a low gain antenna. Half the distance to the towers is over the water.  I lived in San Mateo for 15 years. Unless there is something blocking your signal, or you live in a small valley, you look good.

I can not recommend a DVR+ at this time. I have been following the thread since it started, and the 7400 before that. Maybe someday they will stabilize the box.

More reading: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/45-local-hdtv-info-reception/369015-san-francisco-ca-ota.html

Just kidding.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

JoeKustra said:


> You should get a good signal with even a low gain antenna. Half the distance to the towers is over the water.


Water is one of the biggest killers of RF Signals thanks to temperature inversion.


----------



## Oaklander (Mar 24, 2016)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Water is one of the biggest killers of RF Signals thanks to temperature inversion.


I don't know about water inversion and RF signal quality but this OTA + Bolt better work or its back to ATT/Comcast or DISH. DISH is the least painful of the lt unless they have worked hard to match ATT/Comcast's poor service and quality. Maybe I'll give it all up and wean myself away from TV and watch not so cute kitten videos on youtube. I hear people love it.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

Maybe Tivo should have multiple subscription tiers for OTA customers to reflect that there is a wide range of how much DVR support different OTA customers need. A customer who watches 80%+ OTA content wants a full-featured DVR. But a customer who watches less than 20% doesn't need as much. 

I don't think the price of the box is as much of an issue. Tivo's hardware is rock-solid and is fine if it costs a premium over similar OTA DVRs. You can get a cheaper DVR, but you'll have to deal with more tuning issues, hangs, poor software, etc. But on the ongoing basis, I think the consumer is more price sensitive. I could see pricing like this:

$5/mo -- One tuner unlocked, 1-day guide (or none), max 5 VCR time/channel recordings, no season pass.

$10/mo -- Two tuners unlocked, 1 week guide, unlimited time/channel recordings, 3 season passes, no Tivo suggestions

$15/mo -- Full function.

This allows Tivo to gain a wide range of OTA customers. Without variable pricing, I think Tivo will lose a lot of OTA customers to the other DVRs. Their only market will be the heavy OTA watchers, and that's probably a pretty small market. But with these pricing tiers, it allows Tivo to get some revenue from customers that would have instead used a competitor.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

warrenn said:


> Maybe Tivo should have multiple subscription tiers for OTA customers to reflect that there is a wide range of how much DVR support different OTA customers need. A customer who watches 80%+ OTA content wants a full-featured DVR. But a customer who watches less than 20% doesn't need as much.
> 
> I don't think the price of the box is as much of an issue. Tivo's hardware is rock-solid and is fine if it costs a premium over similar OTA DVRs. You can get a cheaper DVR, but you'll have to deal with more tuning issues, hangs, poor software, etc. But on the ongoing basis, I think the consumer is more price sensitive. I could see pricing like this:
> 
> ...


They can't crank out Roamios for $99 for even $199 and make money offering a $5/mo plan. I think that they should offer a product like the Roamio OTA for $399 or $499 all-in with the hardware and service similar to what Tablo does.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

I would try the antenna on your TV first, as that would be good indicator of the reception you would get with the bolt.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Oaklander said:


> I don't know about water inversion and RF signal quality but this OTA + Bolt better work or its back to ATT/Comcast or DISH. DISH is the least painful of the lt unless they have worked hard to match ATT/Comcast's poor service and quality. Maybe I'll give it all up and wean myself away from TV and watch not so cute kitten videos on youtube. I hear people love it.


As someone who cancelled DirecTV and moved to OTA + streaming on a TiVo Roamio last year, I will tell you not to expect perfect OTA reception on every channel. You may be lucky and get that but you just can't expect it. As someone above stated, try connecting whatever antenna you plan to use directly to your current TV and see what your reception is like. It will probably be about the same with the Bolt.

Even if there's one or two OTA channels that are problematic for you, you may be able to remedy that with a Hulu subscription, which gives you next-day streaming access to virtually all current shows from ABC, NBC, Fox and the CW (plus other stuff too). Of course, should you decide to go that route, you may end up deciding that you don't really need the Bolt and would rather just use a less expensive Roku, Fire TV or Apple TV streaming box and then pay $8-12 per month for Hulu plus maybe $6 per month for CBS All Access. Watch your local news and weather live using your OTA antenna connected to your TV and watch pretty much everything else via streaming.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

foghorn2 said:


> This tread is becoming Antenna Porn!
> 
> More antenna links and pictures please!












Finally got a chance to assemble Frankentenna in my attic. That is a Stella Labs 30-2476 with the front half of the booms of two other 30-2476s.

So, no repositioning of directors or cutting of anything -- just adding sections of boom to the front. I have been watching a vhf station (WMTW in Portland Maine which is 70 miles away) without dropout since this morning.










Strong signal and very good signal quality...










Pretty happy with the results. Total cost for the three antennas was ~$90 shipped.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not sure why OTA people complain so much about the price. There are really only two competitors in the market, Chanel Master and Tablo.* A Channel Master with hard drive costs $400, no service fee. A Tablo costs $300 and carries a $5/mo, $50/year or $150/lifetime setvice fee. A Roamio OTA was only $50 with a $15/mo service fee. That's roughly a 2 year break even point with those other two devices. And the Tablo also requires a 3rd party device, like a Roku, to even function because the main box is completely headless.
> 
> That being said I think if TiVo could change the price point a little they might draw in some new customers. For example if the hardware was say $150 and they offered a service fee of $8/mo, $75/year or $300/lifetime then that would be directly competitive with those other two products. The trick would be making the hardware cheap enough that they could sell it for that price and still make a profit.
> 
> ...


Two competitors? Amazon has recast. There's also Channels DVR which is more robust than any other option out there. And of course you have Plex. Of course the latter two are server based so you can use a cheap computer you have lying around as a server and use streaming sticks (anything but Roku). Don't see making the need for streamers a negative when you have to use Minis on a Tivo. Especially if you have streaming services that aren't on tivo which at this point is a pretty critical thing. Youre also using a Silicon Dust network OTA tuner with 2 or 4 tuners. You can use multiples for those that wanted 6 tuners. And, you already have the option of their atsc 3.0 tuner, so you're future proofed. Believe Channels is further along with 3.0 support than Plex is. Plex I believe still has some codec issue it doesn't support. 

Channels also has TV Everywhere support which is a big plus, especially if you happen to share in a family members cable info. But it also supports some other streaming TV services that are free. It also does some of the local server stuff like Plex. So for an all in one solution, there is better than Tivo out there. 

And going back to atsc 3.0, I don't believe tivo gives a crap about it. Not sure why anyone would plunk down hundreds of dollars on an atsc 1.0 box of sorts at this stage. For me, I swap out my Quatro hdhomerun and plug in their 3.0 box and just keep on chugging with the rest of my already owned equipment. 

If there was any plus to tivo there it'd be you could still make use of the mini's and just replace the main box with an OTA 3.0 box if they ever decide to make one. But then you're still going from the mini or main to the built in TV apps or a separate streamer app. The whole switching input argument that everyone brings up. 

I just don't get why people still cling to tivo like they think they're actually going to update and do something new and innovative, bring about the convergence everyone wanted for so long. Even with OTA, I'm much happier with Channels now that I don't have some big main box (mini pc sits behind my TV) and just the one streamer on my video sources.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dbpaddler said:


> Two competitors? Amazon has recast. There's also Channels DVR which is more robust than any other option out there. And of course you have Plex. Of course the latter two are server based so you can use a cheap computer you have lying around as a server and use streaming sticks (anything but Roku). Don't see making the need for streamers a negative when you have to use Minis on a Tivo. Especially if you have streaming services that aren't on tivo which at this point is a pretty critical thing. Youre also using a Silicon Dust network OTA tuner with 2 or 4 tuners. You can use multiples for those that wanted 6 tuners. And, you already have the option of their atsc 3.0 tuner, so you're future proofed. Believe Channels is further along with 3.0 support than Plex is. Plex I believe still has some codec issue it doesn't support.
> 
> Channels also has TV Everywhere support which is a big plus, especially if you happen to share in a family members cable info. But it also supports some other streaming TV services that are free. It also does some of the local server stuff like Plex. So for an all in one solution, there is better than Tivo out there.
> 
> ...


You realize that the post you quoted was from 8 years ago right?


----------



## jsherknus (Jan 2, 2009)

The OTA market just isn't big enough to save Tivo. If you live in a large city like NY you can get quite a few OTA channels...but for the people between NY and LA the OTA offerings are very few. There's just not enough market there for Tivo to survive.


----------

