# Is OTA being forced into an early grave?



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

OK, some random thoughts here that I've had for awhile. Is greed pushing OTA TV towards an early grave just as it should be on the rebound? Personally I've seen growing interest from people looking for cheaper options for TV with more people considering going OTA. Most people who discover what free OTA TV has to offer with a good setup (especially with a device like a TiVo) are pretty amazed. I've helped quite a few friends "cut the cord" and the interest only seems to be growing. So many people don't even realize what's available. If they know OTA TV at all they just think of a few snowy channels that come and go. There does seem to be published data showing something of a trend. Unfortunately though, that data seems to get skewed depending on the source and that source's motivation. So it's hard to know the true numbers and I think that is by design.

So at the same time there is growing interest in free over the air TV, the FCC is selling off even more of the broadcast spectrum as quickly as possible, TiVo is struggling for survival, and competitive products, Tablo, Simple TV, and DVR plus seem to have trouble getting any real traction. It seems to me that those who have competing interests are doing their best to kill off OTA TV as quickly as possible before it really rebounds and gains too much traction to go away quietly.

The FCC/federal government is making billions of dollars selling off the spectrum, pay TV providers want to maintain their virtual stranglehold on consumer choice and eliminate the competition, cell phone companies want to gobble up the maximum possible amount of spectrum etc. That is a tremendous amount of money and competing interests to make them want to at the very least marginalize free OTA TV. 

I do realize commercial supported TV is struggling but it is a model that has worked for many many decades and still has a large audience (even if t's smaller than it once was). I think it can remain viable if the offerings remain attractive enough to consumers. And as the commercially supported OTA TV audience expands, so does the ability for them to sell advertising and stay profitable.

I have often felt that if the digital TV conversion had happened a decade earlier, prior to consumers becoming as entrenched to the cable/pay TV we would see a very different television market today. I think we would see more broadcast stations, and even more sports TV being broadcast via OTA. Could the likes of cable channels like ESPN have become a broadcast network? And if we had kept the full television spectrum we had before the digital conversion there would be tremendous capacity for additional stations and even UHD broadcasts. It's disheartening to see that opportunity being eroded. Yes, broadcast TV will likely always have some terrain issues but they can still reach the majority of the US population and innovation may have made more inroads to greater expansion of its reach.

Just curious if anyone else has considered these questions?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

It is sad what is happening as it costs the consumer in the end. 

I don't think that digital tv being earlier would have quelled cable, though. Cable took a strong hold long before the digital switchover. In fact, the switchover was probably assuaged by how big cable had penetrated. It meant less of an effort on most people's ends. 

The OTA rebound you are citing is more because of the rising cost of cable than the technology itself. If cable were half what it costs today, you'd see no OTA swell.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

TonyD79 said:


> It is sad what is happening as it costs the consumer in the end.
> 
> The OTA rebound you are citing is more because of the rising cost of cable than the technology itself. If cable were half what it costs today, you'd see no OTA swell.


But don't you think if the digital conversion had happened enough earlier that most people would have been very satisfied with the level of entertainment provided for free and wouldn't have been willing to pay? Especially if the number of channels had increased as well as it likely would have? I know I would have never felt the need to pay for TV if that had been available. Certainly price is a big factor but part of the attraction of cable was more channels and no reception problems. Heck I find plenty to watch with 50 OTA channels, perfect reception, and a TiVo DVR.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TeamPace said:


> OK, some random thoughts here that I've had for awhile. Is greed pushing OTA TV towards an early grave just as it should be on the rebound? Personally I've seen growing interest from people looking for cheaper options for TV with more people considering going OTA. Most people who discover what free OTA TV has to offer with a good setup (especially with a device like a TiVo) are pretty amazed. I've helped quite a few friends "cut the cord" and the interest only seems to be growing. So many people don't even realize what's available. If they know OTA TV at all they just think of a few snowy channels that come and go. There does seem to be published data showing something of a trend. Unfortunately though, that data seems to get skewed depending on the source and that source's motivation. So it's hard to know the true numbers and I think that is by design.
> 
> So at the same time there is growing interest in free over the air TV, the FCC is selling off even more of the broadcast spectrum as quickly as possible, TiVo is struggling for survival, and competitive products, Tablo, Simple TV, and DVR plus seem to have trouble getting any real traction. It seems to me that those who have competing interests are doing their best to kill off OTA TV as quickly as possible before it really rebounds and gains too much traction to go away quietly.
> 
> ...


Nothing is free (or at least not for very long).

The model that worked so well, as you called, has been on the decline for years with money paid directly to cable channels. OTA cannot continue to compete when cable channels have 2 revenue streams to OTA's 1.

Furthermore, the only Revenue Stream for the OTA is being skipped by TiVo users and others.

As a few people return to OTA only, without a dual revenue stream model, there will be nothing left to return to that they will want to view.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

TeamPace said:


> But don't you think if the digital conversion had happened enough earlier that most people would have been very satisfied with the level of entertainment provided for free and wouldn't have been willing to pay? Especially if the number of channels had increased as well as it likely would have? I know I would have never felt the need to pay for TV if that had been available. Certainly price is a big factor but part of the attraction of cable was more channels and no reception problems. Heck I find plenty to watch with 50 OTA channels, perfect reception, and a TiVo DVR.


No I don't. We used to have free tv. And cable came in and took over well before it provided hundreds of channels. It was easy. Pre wired and all done. No need for antennas. I grew up in the area of the first cable systems. They didn't have cable channels. It was just network tv and channels from the bigger cities. It took over even then.

Conscience and price made cable viable. What is making OTA desirable to a decent chunk of the population (still the minority) is price. Cable prices are climbing.

Sure, the sub channels help but look at the 20+ million who have directv and the millions who have dish without sub channels. They aren't a big enough draw.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

look up what the current leader of the FCC used to be and that will answer all your questions

its really sad


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

TonyD79 said:


> No I don't. We used to have free tv. And cable came in and took over well before it provided hundreds of channels. It was easy. Pre wired and all done. No need for antennas. I grew up in the area of the first cable systems. They didn't have cable channels. It was just network tv and channels from the bigger cities. It took over even then.
> 
> Conscience and price made cable viable. What is making OTA desirable to a decent chunk of the population (still the minority) is price. Cable prices are climbing.
> 
> Sure, the sub channels help but look at the 20+ million who have directv and the millions who have dish without sub channels. They aren't a big enough draw.


I agree that cable would have still succeeded due to some of the reasons you note: convenience, reasonable price, and more channels. But had todays OTA technology been offered a decade earlier with crystal clear pictures & sound, DVR availability, and considerably more OTA channels available (which I suggest would have grown to even more than we have today), I think OTA would have retained a much larger percentage of the viewing audience and cable wouldn't have gained the strangle hold they have now. That larger audience would have meant more advertising dollars available as well. I am only satisfied with OTA now because of the larger availability of programming, a TiVo, and the quality of the picture/sound. If my choice was what it was a decade or more ago; a half dozen snowy channels, I would as I did then have moved on to pay options.

I just feel OTA is being rail-roaded into an early grave just as it has taken on new appeal to many consumers. Certainly as with anything in free markets, price/value play an important part in those decisions. Many of the statistics that I see showing OTA still in decline are being done by entities that have some stake in its demise. You'll see widely varying estimates of OTA viewers depending on who did the study and how the questions are worded and asked.

However you feel regarding this question the TV market is definitely changing. The monopoly pay services are beginning to get squeezed by the likes of Sling TV, Netflix, and Sony's new VUE TV. Yes those are small players at the moment but the cat is out of the bag and I think we will see great changes in the coming decade. The pay services won't go quietly and they are doing everything in their power to keep their monopoly power. I just want OTA TV to have a chance in that changing landscape and not be squeezed out just as it showing some signs of renewed traction. I recognize the argument that OTA has been around since the beginning, so it has had it's chance. But digital TV as we have it now has not been around very long. I find the majority of people I talk to don't even understand how good it can be.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

NAB is really pushing ATSC 3.0, but the problem is that it will not support nor is backward compatable with the current ATSC 1.0. So, one can imagine that will be a very big issue when the FCC comes to a point of holding hearings. Of course, NAB argues that if it is allowed this ONE time to kill an existing ATSC and all its products that depend upon it, ATSC 3.0 can change over the years with backward compatability.

But all this ONLY occured AFTER the FCC auctioned off or will be auctioning off part of the broadcast TV spectrum that was PROMISED to first responders and wireless companies. So, NAB made its own bed by having a situation where keeping the current frequencies along with those to be sold still intact for backward compatability. The FCC is NOT at all at fault becase everything (except the mandated digital transition date) has proceeded as NAB wanted. Too late, now.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

TeamPace said:


> OK, some random thoughts here that I've had for awhile. Is greed pushing OTA TV towards an early grave just as it should be on the rebound?


I don't think so. Since Fox and CBS threatened to pull their broadcasts over Aereo, Fox's Movies! and CBS's Decades have been added to my OTA lineup. Escape, Comet, Laff, Heroes and Icons, Buzz, and GetTV are all newcomers to the broadcast scene. If anything, OTA is growing.



TeamPace said:


> the FCC is selling off even more of the broadcast spectrum as quickly as possible


The re-purposing of UHF frequencies is not going to kill off broadcast television. Technological advances allow more channels to be broadcast in a smaller spectrum. This 'repacking' will leave plenty of bandwidth for television while adding some to the growing mobile market.



TeamPace said:


> TiVo is struggling for survival, and competitive products, Tablo, Simple TV, and DVR plus seem to have trouble getting any real traction. It seems to me that those who have competing interests are doing their best to kill off OTA TV as quickly as possible before it really rebounds and gains too much traction to go away quietly.


Most people that I know who have OTA do not own a DVR of any kind. Most do not own a streamer of any kind. Some do not have high speed internet. They put up an antenna, plug in their television, and watch. The main appeal of broadcast television is the cost. The value consumer is not interested in buying a $700 DVR or paying fees.

That said, when I cut my cord in 2010, I purchased five DTVPals. The DTVPal was already out of production and I was concerned that there would be alternative to TiVi when the Pals reached end of life. Channel Master sold two DVRs after the DTVPal -- a clone of the Pal and a completely new CM7500. Funai made a bunch of 'digital DVRs'. Then came the Simple DVR Kickstarter. The single tuner was expensive and had a monthly fee. They made a poor two tuner model and were pushed aside by Tablo which, while still expensive, worked better. Channel Master's DVR+ is doing well enough that Funai is launching a new line of OTA DVRs in the fall.



TeamPace said:


> The FCC/federal government is making billions of dollars selling off the spectrum, pay TV providers want to maintain their virtual stranglehold on consumer choice and eliminate the competition, cell phone companies want to gobble up the maximum possible amount of spectrum etc. That is a tremendous amount of money and competing interests to make them want to at the very least marginalize free OTA TV.


Everything you say here is true, but they are not related or some kind of conspiracy. Adding mobile spectrum is good for cell phone users and sellers -- it's worth billions to them. Marginal stations are making money selling off their bandwidth, but no one watches them anyway. In my market, there is a channel with the call letters WBIN. It was purchased by Carlisle Media One in 2011 which reserved spectrum for three low power repeater stations. The station is just powerful enough to be 'must carry' on cable and no construction permits have ever been pulled for the three repeaters. These nonexistent stations will be auctioned off and no one will notice. Same for the half dozen ION affiliates in my market. The other big players in the reverse auction will be low power religious/community stations and college supported PBS affiliates. In Boston, WGBX and WGBH are almost completely redundant. A lot of money will be made, but the repacking will not kill off broadcast television.



TeamPace said:


> I do realize commercial supported TV is struggling but it is a model that has worked for many many decades and still has a large audience (even if t's smaller than it once was). I think it can remain viable if the offerings remain attractive enough to consumers. And as the commercially supported OTA TV audience expands, so does the ability for them to sell advertising and stay profitable.


You said commercially supported twice. The threat to commercial support is technology that skips commercials. Lack of success of DVRs in broadcast homes is probably very good for broadcast television. If ad supported television is going to survive, someone has to figure out how to make the commercials more impactful. Whether commercials become more entertaining or more relevant, people need to be willing to watch and patronize the sponsors. Some people watch the superbowl for the ads. Advertising products used to build a product or make a meal during a DIY show seems to work for PBS.



TeamPace said:


> I have often felt that if the digital TV conversion had happened a decade earlier, prior to consumers becoming as entrenched to the cable/pay TV we would see a very different television market today. I think we would see more broadcast stations, and even more sports TV being broadcast via OTA. Could the likes of cable channels like ESPN have become a broadcast network? And if we had kept the full television spectrum we had before the digital conversion there would be tremendous capacity for additional stations and even UHD broadcasts. It's disheartening to see that opportunity being eroded. Yes, broadcast TV will likely always have some terrain issues but they can still reach the majority of the US population and innovation may have made more inroads to greater expansion of its reach.


I feel like you are very young. We were very much 'entrenched' in cable television TWENTY years before the digital transition. NESN launched in 1984 and ESPN first aired in 1979. There were more cable subscribers in 1990 than there are today! AND, there are more broadcast only homes today than there were in 1990!

The fact is that the digital transition _should_ have been the death of broadcast television. People had to install kludgy converters, the cable companies offered attractive discounts, and the media FUD machine was eulogizing OTA 24/7. Cable missed a golden opportunity.



TeamPace said:


> Just curious if anyone else has considered these questions?


People talk about this stuff all the time. It's idle speculation as most of us do not even know how many Tablos have been sold or how many people use an antenna. The fact that channels keep popping up tells me those who know aren't losing sleep over the future of broadcast television. Someone is paying for ATSC 3, right?

BTW, one of the drivers of broadcast television is nostalgia. The programming is inexpensive and plentiful. The cost to carry these stations for the cable companies is relatively high. The fact is that it is much less expensive to air repeats of NYPD Blue than a Cleveland vs Toronto MLB game and more people will watch NYPD Blue.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Series3Sub said:


> NAB is really pushing ATSC 3.0, but the problem is that it will not support nor is backward compatable with the current ATSC 1.0.


I think ATSC 3.0 will coexist with ATSC 1.0 initially. I can envision a 'premium' converter which brings UHD and pay offerings to OTA. Probably something like Sling TV or Vue. We had something like this in the 70s...


> Both wired and over-the-air pay television systems were launched in the 1970s. In 1977, over-the-air systems were started in Newark, N.J., by Wometco-Blonder-Tongue (over station WWHT) and in Corona (Los Angeles), California, by Chartwell Communications (over station KBSC). By 1980, eight others were in operation, with an additional 16 stations authorized and ready to launch. These over-the-air systems were developing concurrently with satellite-delivered cable program services, however, and were not able to compete with the wired medium once it became available in major urban areas.


We trialed this, but reception was poor and content was not very good.

ATSC 3.0 does not have to outlive existing TV panels, but the FCC cannot disrupt service again for those who do not use a set top box and broadcasters will not broadcast content that no one watches. So, ATSC 1.0 continues to dominate free tv and ATSC 3.0 carries premium content -- at least until someone devises an inexpensive box which can be given to owners of legacy sets. The fact that UHD sets shipped without ATSC 3.0 tuners says ATSC 1.0 is here for a LONG time.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I am not too worried about the repacking/spectrum sale or ATSC 3.0. They both offer the potential for significant benefits to many people over time. Sure there is some down side to both but in the end I think the potential upside out ways the downside significantly. 

First lets start with the repacking/spectrum sale. Increasing wireless spectrum is a big deal and it is potentially a big deal for more than just mobile phone users. I know people who have no wired high speed Internet option and others like me with only DSL, increased mobile bandwidth and 5G could finally make at home wireless Internet access competitive to wired and significantly increase our Internet options. The bigger deal maybe connected cars which offers all of us unbelievable opportunities and benefits. In the coming decades the affect on over all transportation should be amazing, accidents and traffic deaths should decline substantially, the need for more roads should decline, and over all traffic issues should also declines substantially, all dependent on having enough bandwidth to make it all work. And I am sure there are other future products also all dependent on having enough wireless bandwidth so what's the down side? Some markets loose a bunch of junk channels broadcasting reruns or selling stuff. 

Second lets talk about ATSC 3.0. The benefits are pretty clear, it provides more bandwidth that can either be used to provide more channels per frequency (negating the effects of repacking/spectrum sales) and/or allows for higher quality HD or UHD broadcasts. It also provides the ability for phones/tablets to receive OTA broadcasts and appears to be able to potentially provide better over all reception than current OTA broadcasts. The down side is we will all need new equipment, how big a deal that is depends on what replacement equipment costs. 

From my point of view there are only 6 OTA channels that matter (ABC, CBS, CW, FOX, NBC, & PBS) which are the ones that broadcast in HD and provide new content and I don't see the repacking/spectrum sale or ATSC 3.0 negatively impacting the continued OTA broadcast of any of these channels. All the rest are just providing repeats or are selling something and there will still be enough room for more than enough of these.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

So, I am guessing my Roamio OTA isn't going to be able to receive ATSC 3.0 broadcasts...


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

ncted said:


> So, I am guessing my Roamio OTA isn't going to be able to receive ATSC 3.0 broadcasts...


I don't know how recently you bought it, but our resident Idiot here has been saying for awhile here that was a bad purchase decision.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

ncted said:


> So, I am guessing my Roamio OTA isn't going to be able to receive ATSC 3.0 broadcasts...


Or your TV, so it's time to move to Canada before it gets crowded.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ncted said:


> So, I am guessing my Roamio OTA isn't going to be able to receive ATSC 3.0 broadcasts...





Wil said:


> I don't know how recently you bought it, but our resident Idiot here has been saying for awhile here that was a bad purchase decision.


Basically nothing being sold today has an ATSC 3.0 tuner in it. The finial spec isn't even 100% complete yet. My personal guess is that by the time it matters our Roamio's will be old and we will have more than gotten our moneys worth from them. We went around and around on this in another thread, bottom line no body knows when/if any stations are going to convert to ATSC 3.0 only broadcasts. In markets where lots of frequencies are being used up by junk broadcasts the repacking will likely force some of those channels off the air. I think there will be about 22 usable VHF/UHF frequencies left for OTA after the repacking. And of course a frequency can be used for more than one channel. Locally Ion has 1 720p & 5 480i channels on one frequency. The 720p channel looks fine the 480i ones not so much.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Comical to read how many people have not read or grasp the full implications of (1) the selling of Spectrum (2) the repack, sign-offs and movement from UHF to VHF (3) the ATSC 3.0 implications and (4) the rollout.

Also of note, all OTA Stations are required to do is Broadcast the Main Channel digitally - and not at any particular resolution or bitrate. The additional bitrate can be used for many other things than additional channels or resolution.

Also of interest, ATSC 3.0 tests of SFN Transmission proof of concept started this past week in Baltimore and DC on Channel 42 which holds great promise WITH MULTIPLE TRANSMITTERS of the SAME PROGRAMMING on the SAME FREQUENCY with NO INTERFERENCE.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/one-media-conducts-atsc-30-concept-sfn-trials/278232

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/-qa-mark-aitken-on-one-media-atsc-30-sfn-trials/278233


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Comical to read how many people have not read or grasp the full implications of (1) the selling of Spectrum (2) the repack, sign-offs and movement from UHF to VHF (3) the ATSC 3.0 implications and (4) the rollout.
> 
> Also of note, all OTA Stations are required to do is Broadcast the Main Channel digitally - and not at any particular resolution or bitrate. The additional bitrate can be used for many other things than additional channels or resolution.
> 
> ...


So your contention is that broadcasters will embrace ATSC 3.0 regardless of the existence of hardware capable of receiving it and that they will move to VHF regardless of the existence of viewers with VHF antennas, and that broadcasters will broadcast at bitrates and resolutions people will not watch? That's kind of comical.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Plenty of the markets are using VHF now. I have 2 channels broadcasting on VHF and I have less problem receiving them than the 4 channels that broadcast on UHF (all the towers are effectively in the same place).


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I can bring in the one VHF station I have locally, but it is marginal. Technology should be able to solve this problem, but only if the people in charge make good decisions.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

atmuscarella said:


> Plenty of the markets are using VHF now. I have 2 channels broadcasting on VHF and I have less problem receiving them than the 4 channels that broadcast on UHF (all the towers are effectively in the same place).


That's true. I get a couple stations out of Portlant Maine. Most broadcasts are VHF there. I have helped people who were having no luck with OTA by simply educating them on VHF vs UHF and recommending a more suitable antenna.

Most markets are UHF only at this stage of the game, though, and, for many, moving from UHF to VHF would be just like going off the air.

BTW, some of my VHF stations are nearly seventy miles away and almost due north of me. Others are closer and west. I have coupled a y10-7-13 pointed north to a y5-7-13 pointed west to pull these in. I plan to replace the antennacraft antennas with Stellar Labs 30-2476s. I'm hoping extending one of these with a section or two of boom from another will provide more gain for that distant station (heroes and icons).

My concern is that some of my due south stations will move from UHF to VHF during the repack. I do not expect this to happen, though, because most people have UHF only antennas.

Time will tell. I am working on the assumption that these stations want to remain on the air and attract as many eyeballs as possible.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

I don't have the in depth technical knowledge that many of the posters have but I find the discussions interesting. ATSC 3.0 sounds like it will be a great improvement but there are still questions and issues on implementation. It sounds like it will help with the reduced OTA bandwidth that will be available.

A couple of clarifications on my original post. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy to eliminate OTA, just conflicting interests that may be a bit overzealous in their desire to grab more of the TV spectrum. Sure, there are many factors involved in how that has come about. I feel the current repacking plan is being implemented too quickly on the heals of the first wave of digital conversion. I mean digital TV has had only a handful of years to blossom. Many consumers are just discovering how good it can be. The expansion of sub channels has grown tremendously in just the past couple of years in many markets. The competing interests clearly would not want to concede any possibility that OTA TV may have been on the verge of a comeback. That would be counter to their goals.

If there is a market for MVP's to provide more and more channels, why couldn't there be a market for expanded OTA offerings? In some ways it's already happening via sub channels. Yes those are mostly small players at this point but I think much more prominant cable channels could have become broadcast stations had things played out just a bit differently. And granted it has to be financially viable but that is another discussion. Yes OTA as it is currently should be able to survive just fine (for the most part) within the remaining spectrum. But part of my point is that there could have been potential for something of a renaissance of broadcast TV. Yes I know many will disagree with that opinion. But the technology today makes for much more compelling consumer experience. People have tired of the the cable monopoly, exorbitant ever increasing costs, and lack of choice. I feel the continued loss of broadcast spectrum has made a true full renaissance of OTA TV virtually impossible. Many are fine with that outcome, but I find it disappointing. I also recognize the arguments that there are better uses of the spectrum, but again there are going to be different opinions on that topic.

Not trying to start a war of any kind here, I just feel OTA TV in its digital form never got a fair chance to prove it's viability. And while there might not be a "conspiracy" behind this there are certainly some powerful interests and lots of money that needed it to either go away or shrink to insignificance.

As to commercials becoming obsolete due to the ability to skip them it doesn't seem to have happened. The ability to FF thru commercials has been around since the introduction of the VCR, yet companies still pour millions of dollars into commercials. Yes a feature like skip mode could undermine that to some degree but TiVo is a small market and even then not all shows will have it nor will everyone use it on a consistent basis. So companies are likely to continue to spend on the advertising until they find it simply isn't producing results. Lastly haven't the broadcast stations also become "dual" funded entities as well? They get the money from selling advertising as well as rebroadcast fees from MVP's.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> So your contention is that broadcasters will embrace ATSC 3.0 regardless of the existence of hardware capable of receiving it and that they will move to VHF regardless of the existence of viewers with VHF antennas, and that broadcasters will broadcast at bitrates and resolutions people will not watch? That's kind of comical.


There you go again reading more into what I wrote than was there

That REALLY is comical.

Considering that Nielsen has taken OTA Only Households out if the ratings and they average only 11.8% nationwide, the OTA Stations are losing 0 moving to ATSC 3.0.

But then again, as I have stated, as you fail to look at the big picture, of course you don't see the many pieces.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

In my market, here is the utilization of the television spectrum...

02 FREE
03 FREE (Reserved by WBIN)
04 FREE (Reserved by WBIN)
05 FREE
06 FREE
07 FREE (Reserved by WBIN)
08 Portland, ME WMTW (ABC, Heroes and Icons)
09 Manchester, NH WMUR (ABC, MeTV)
10 FREE
11 Durham, NH WENH (PBS, Explore, World, Create)
12 FREE
13 FREE
14 FREE
15 FREE
16 FREE
17 FREE
18 Boston, MA WMFP (Cozi, The Works, Comet TV)
19 Boston, MA WGBH (PBS, World)
20 Boston, MA WCVB (ABC, MeTV)
21 FREE
22 FREE
23 FREE
24 FREE
25 FREE
26 FREE
27 Boston, MA WUTF (Spanish, Bounce, GetTV, Escape)
28 FREE
29 Boston, MA WUNI (Spanish, LATV, ZUUS Latino)
30 Boston, MA WBZ (CBS, Decades)
31 Boston, MA WFXT (Fox, Movies!, LAFF)
32 Boston, MA WTMU (Telemundo)
33 Concord, NH WBPX (ION, Qubo, ION Life, ION Shop, QVC, HSN)
34 Boston, MA WNEU (Telemundo)
35 Derry, NH WBIN (Antenna TV, Grit)
36 Nashua, NH WYCN Low power station carrying Heroes and Icons and a music station
37 FREE
38 FREE
39 Boston, MA WSBK
40 Boston, MA W40BO (ION, Qubo, ION Life, ION Shop, QVC, HSN)
41 Boston, MA WLVI
42 Boston, MA WHDH NBC (ThisTV)
43 Boston, MA WGBX PBS (Create, Kids)
44 Portland, ME WCSH NBC (Justice TV, Antenna TV)
45 Portland, ME WMEA PBS
46 FREE
47 Boston, MA Daystar 

It's easy to see that, ignoring VHF, my market could free up everything above 33 without combining or losing any channels. That is fourteen stations. I expect Daystar and WYCN to cash out. No problem making room for a couple ATSC 3.0 stations in UHF. There are also nine VHF stations.

And that is in a market with a lot of television stations and includes two distinct DMAs. 

Really, much ado about nothing, IMHO.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> In my market, here is the utilization of the television spectrum...
> 
> 02 FREE
> 03 FREE (Reserved by WBIN)
> ...


This really shows how you REALLY do not see the real picture.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I see it...

==> SomeRandomIdiot


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> I see it...
> 
> ==> SomeRandomIdiot


Clearly you deserve the nick more than I.

One cannot look at 1 Market.

Yes, the Boston DMA would be fine if you ceased all OTA TV in Providence (41 Miles Away), Springfield-Holyoke, MA (80 Miles Away), Hartford (94 Miles Away), Portland-Auburn Maine (100 Miles Away) etc (not to mention the stations in other markets you failed to list.)

In reality this is how the Boston DMA looks for RF just within 100 miles (and there are others that MAY have to be looked at for separation).

2	FREE
3	FREE (Reserved by WBIN)
4	FREE (Reserved by WBIN)
5	FREE
6	Albany, NY Possible Issue WRGB (CBS)
7	FREE (Reserved by WBIN)
8	Portland, ME WMTW (ABC, Heroes and Icons)
9	Manchester, NH WMUR (ABC, MeTV)
10	Portland, ME WCBB (PBS)
11	Durham, NH WENH (PBS, Explore, World, Create)
12	Providence, RI WNAC (Fox)
13	Providence, RI WPRI (CBS)
14	FREE
15	FREE
16	FREE
17	Providence, RI WPXQ (Ion)
18	Boston, MA WMFP (Cozi, The Works, Comet TV)
19	Boston, MA WGBH (PBS, World)
20	Boston, MA WCVB (ABC, MeTV)
21	Portland, ME WGBI-LP (Retro)
22	Providence, RI WLWC (CW)
23	Portland, ME WPFO (Fox)
24	FREE
25	FREE
26	New London, CT WHPX (Ion)
27	Boston, MA WUTF (Spanish, Bounce, GetTV, Escape)
28	Springfield, MA WFXQ (NBC)
29	Boston, MA WUNI (Spanish, LATV, ZUUS Latino)
30	Boston, MA WBZ (CBS, Decades)
31	Boston, MA WFXT (Fox, Movies!, LAFF)
32	Boston, MA WTMU (Telemundo)
33	Concord, NH WBPX (ION, Qubo, ION Life, ION Shop, QVC, HSN)
34	Boston, MA WNEU (Telemundo)
35	Derry, NH WBIN (Antenna TV, Grit)
36	Nashua, NH WYCN Low power station carrying Heroes and Icons and a music station
37	VACANT - Radio Astronomy
38	Portland, ME WGME (CBS)
39	Boston, MA WSBK
40	Boston, MA W40BO (ION, Qubo, ION Life, ION Shop, QVC, HSN)
41	Boston, MA WLVI
42	Boston, MA WHDH NBC (ThisTV)
43	Boston, MA WGBX PBS (Create, Kids)
44	Portland, ME WCSH NBC (Justice TV, Antenna TV)
45	Portland, ME WMEA PBS
46	Hartford, CT WUVN (Univision)
47	Boston, MA Daystar
48	FREE
49	Providence, RI WLNE (ABC)
50	Providence, RI WRIW (Telemundo)
51	Providence, RI WJAR (NBC)

Now tell us where those 17 TV Station 33 and above are all going to move to?

Sorry, without looking at the big picture you will never see the truth - and your post proves your narrow focus.


----------



## mlcarson (Dec 31, 2007)

The problem with OTA is that it's just not available for a good portion of the country. Digital made the situation worse because it shortened the reception distances. If you're in an urban area, you may be able to get a lot of OTA stations but not so much in rural areas. I'm currently 150 miles northwest of LA and can probably get one channel that's in English.

At least with UHF, the antenna sizes were smaller. People complain about the installation of satellite dishes -- no way VHF antennas are going to be accepted again. There's also the problem of broadcast location. If your channels are in different directions, you either need multiple antennas or a rotor. Nobody wants to have to rotate the antenna on a channel change. It's not easy to effectively combine antennas so the best solution was multiple receivers that could be integrated easily. Windows Media Center was perfect for this in combination with SiliconDust HDHomeRun devices but Windows 10 and the Rovi guide data kind of put an end to this solution. The common solutions for the masses have no good way to integrate external tuners.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

It's not available to everyone using a set top antenna, but most people do have access with an attic or rooftop antenna. I live in southern New Hampshire. My Boston stations are 40+ miles away and my Portland stations are nearly 70 miles away. My antennas are in my attic and my house is surrounded by red pine trees -- red pine trees are 50-70 foot tall trees which are thin and branchless except for a tuft of needle covered branches at the top. They sway in the least wind and are covered with snow most of the winter. I live on a hill, so the tops of these things cover the horizon. Amongst these red pines are maples and oaks.

That is a pretty challenging situation, but we get three PBS stations and their subchannels, a CBS and Decades, three ABCs, Heroes and Icons, and MeTV, an NBC and This TV, a Fox with Movies and Laff, a MyTV, a CW with BuzzTV, Cozi, The Works, Bounce, GetTV, Escape, and ION with Qubo and Ion Life.










I have yet to find a person who was unable to receive SOMETHING who was willing to do some research, get the right antenna, mount it correctly, and point it in the right direction. Obviously, those people exist, but I have not yet come across one.

By 1962, 93% of US households had televisions. At that time, there were no Rokus or cable or satellite options, so the assumption has to be that at least that many households could receive broadcast television. Just the same, there are over 200 DMAs serving the country.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

wizwor said:


> I have yet to find a person who was unable to receive SOMETHING who was willing to do some research, get the right antenna, mount it correctly, and point it in the right direction. Obviously, those people exist, but I have not yet come across one.


My DMA is Wilkes-Barre/Scranton. Zip is 17921 as shown under my name. I'm actually in the Village of Fountain Springs, half way up a large hill. Since my towers are NE of me, and directly through the hill, the chances of OTA access are slim to none. I'd like to say you have met one. I have seen one antenna, but like the one I used to have, it might be used for FM. My cable provider, SECV, has been around since 1948, starting as a CATV system.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I've seen a number of people who have cut the cord or are basically cord-nevers at this point, and almost none of them have OTA. I can think of one who does have OTA, but he just streams everything, and I don't think they actually use the OTA antenna that's just plugged into his TV. You've got a lot of factors working against OTA.

I've found that people who don't watch stuff on cable aren't likely to watch stuff on OTA either, and they just stream everything. People like myself who like cable like cable, and much of the content that we watch is not OTA, especially stuff like ESPN and HBO. A lot of people don't even seem to know that OTA exists, which is bizarre considering that it's been around forever and ever and ever. The last thing that hurts OTA is aggressive bundling by Comcast, Verizon, and others. At the point that it's only $20/mo more for cable TV, why would you not get cable?


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

JoeKustra said:


> My DMA is Wilkes-Barre/Scranton. Zip is 17921 as shown under my name. I'm actually in the Village of Fountain Springs, half way up a large hill. Since my towers are NE of me, and directly through the hill, the chances of OTA access are slim to none. I'd like to say you have met one. I have seen one antenna, but like the one I used to have, it might be used for FM. My cable provider, SECV, has been around since 1948, starting as a CATV system.


We haven't met 

If you have a friend who is not on the wrong side of that hill, buy him a Simple TV DVR, install an antenna in his attic, and stream OTA from his home to yours.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

It is clear that the direction things are going is away from OTA, and towards streaming. The cord-cutting OTA phenomenon is just a temporary blip compared to what is happening with the cord-cutting streaming phenomenon. The wireless companies' own zero-rated streaming platforms, the success of Sling, and the probable success of Playstation Vue. Cable TV will still be around for quite a while due to bundling promotions, but the big money wants the airwaves for data, and honestly, as the older generations die off, that is increasingly what the customers want as well. It is just a matter of time until they get it.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> I've seen a number of people who have cut the cord or are basically cord-nevers at this point, and almost none of them have OTA. I can think of one who does have OTA, but he just streams everything, and I don't think they actually use the OTA antenna that's just plugged into his TV. You've got a lot of factors working against OTA.


My oldest is like that -- he watches Netflix or YouTube like I watch Heroes and Icons. I won't live long enough to care about the future of OTA. The main thing it has going for it is that broadcast television is practically free. The broadcasters are showing syndicated shows which are inexpensive, old movies, and low cost local programming -- not athletes, stars, or personalities to pay. Their costs are mostly sunk and they often get additional revenue from 'must carry'.



Bigg said:


> I've found that people who don't watch stuff on cable aren't likely to watch stuff on OTA either, and they just stream everything. People like myself who like cable like cable, and much of the content that we watch is not OTA, especially stuff like ESPN and HBO. A lot of people don't even seem to know that OTA exists, which is bizarre considering that it's been around forever and ever and ever. The last thing that hurts OTA is aggressive bundling by Comcast, Verizon, and others. At the point that it's only $20/mo more for cable TV, why would you not get cable?


Stuff? That's the problem with generalizations. I'm not likely to watch Sponge Bob or Orange is the New Black. I like Hill Street Blues and Big Bang. I think a lot of people believe the FUD that was advanced by the media at the transition. Most stations are UHF now and were VHF before the transition, so old antennas may not work well. I know someone who erected a mast and an antenna who could not get anything despite pointing his DB8 directly at three VHF stations. Bundling is a big deal. When I left Comcast, I tried to reduce my bill first. Each unloved channel removed saved me $10 and cost me a $10 bundling discount. When I got to just high speed internet, the CSR warned it would cost as much as the Basic Cable double play. I had Fairpoint install uncapped, unthrottled high speed internet for $45 a month in 2010. It's still $45 a month today. At the time, I was paying $150/month for Comcast with one DVR and one set top box. Now I have a DVR on every television.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Bigg said:


> At the point that it's only $20/mo more for cable TV, why would you not get cable?


Because it does not stay at $20 for long, at least not here. My monthly bill for cable and internet is down $85/mth by using an antenna and TiVo and downgrading internet to $15/mth 3Mbps.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

wizwor said:


> We haven't met  If you have a friend who is not on the wrong side of that hill, buy him a Simple TV DVR, install an antenna in his attic, and stream OTA from his home to yours.


That's how cable started.

Man wants to sell TVs. But there is a mountain in the way. He puts antenna on top of mountain and sells access to his tv customers. Voila. Cable.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I salute the 30% of all DMAs which have OTA usage of at least 15% for they are truly their brother's keepers and the finders of lost children.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> That's how cable started.
> 
> Man wants to sell TVs. But there is a mountain in the way. He puts antenna on top of mountain and sells access to his tv customers. Voila. Cable.


Exactly what happened here. http://www.secv.com/about-secv/


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> No I don't. We used to have free tv. And cable came in and took over well before it provided hundreds of channels. It was easy. Pre wired and all done. No need for antennas. I grew up in the area of the first cable systems. They didn't have cable channels. It was just network tv and channels from the bigger cities. It took over even then.
> 
> Conscience and price made cable viable. What is making OTA desirable to a decent chunk of the population (still the minority) is price. Cable prices are climbing.
> 
> Sure, the sub channels help but look at the 20+ million who have directv and the millions who have dish without sub channels. They aren't a big enough draw.


For me, I went OTA for HD content fifteen years ago. Back in 2001. Strictly because Satellite and the local cable companies were dragging their feet with HD. But cable/Satellite surpassed OTA by leaps and bounds years later. OTA doesn't come anywhere close to offering the HD that cable and Satellite offer. So there is no way I could dump cable and go back to strictly OTA for HD content.

And then add the fact that I've never paid so little for so much with cable, and OTA can't compete. Back in 2001 I only had a few HD channels on Satellite. And paid around $120 a month for TV. Now I pay $70 a month for FiOS TV and have 160 HD channels.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

TonyD79 said:


> That's how cable started.
> 
> Man wants to sell TVs. But there is a mountain in the way. He puts antenna on top of mountain and sells access to his tv customers. Voila. Cable.


Maybe, but, if you sell access today, you will have problems with the FCC.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> Exactly what happened here. http://www.secv.com/about-secv/


That is where I was referencing. Mahanoy City. I grew up in Hazleton. My dad knew John Walson years after he started cable.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

wizwor said:


> Maybe, but, if you sell access today, you will have problems with the FCC.


Not if you became a cable company and signed contracts as such. Areo tied to side step. That's what got them done.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Not if you became a cable company and signed contracts as such. Areo tied to side step. That's what got them done.


There is an exemption for shared access non-profit antenna systems in apartment buildings/complexes.



wizwor said:


> Stuff? That's the problem with generalizations. I'm not likely to watch Sponge Bob or Orange is the New Black. I like Hill Street Blues and Big Bang. I think a lot of people believe the FUD that was advanced by the media at the transition.


Point missed. It's about the content. Most people who watch TV watch shows across cable and broadcast. A lot of people just don't watch TV anymore. They get no money for must carry, but most networks are retransmission consent. Typically only PBS is must carry. They also pay big bucks for Primetime and football.



jth tv said:


> Because it does not stay at $20 for long, at least not here. My monthly bill for cable and internet is down $85/mth by using an antenna and TiVo and downgrading internet to $15/mth 3Mbps.


You can usually get something out of Comcast. Having an overbuilder or telcoTV option helps a lot too.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

series5orpremier said:


> I salute the 30% of all DMAs which have OTA usage of at least 15% for they are truly their brother's keepers and the finders of lost children.


Those 30% of all DMAs only make up 22% of the US Households.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Bigg said:


> I've seen a number of people who have cut the cord or are basically cord-nevers at this point, and almost none of them have OTA. I can think of one who does have OTA, but he just streams everything, and I don't think they actually use the OTA antenna that's just plugged into his TV. You've got a lot of factors working against OTA.
> 
> I've found that people who don't watch stuff on cable aren't likely to watch stuff on OTA either, and they just stream everything. People like myself who like cable like cable, and much of the content that we watch is not OTA, especially stuff like ESPN and HBO. A lot of people don't even seem to know that OTA exists, which is bizarre considering that it's been around forever and ever and ever. The last thing that hurts OTA is aggressive bundling by Comcast, Verizon, and others. At the point that it's only $20/mo more for cable TV, why would you not get cable?


There is definitely a segment of "cord nevers" who mostly stream content. But many of them are just at a point in their lives that regular TV viewing isn't that important to them, and convenience is more important. But those tastes are likely to change over time as that population ages and has families.

You also are likely in the minority in that you watch more "non network" content. TiVo notes that something like 80% of the most recorded shows are network shows.

I also find many people don't really know what is available via OTA today. Either they have just never had much exposure to OTA or if they have it was from the pre-digital days when you had the choice of maybe 6 or 8 channels that were snowy or full of ghosting. Not really very useable or desirable. I find people are very surprised when they see I receive 50 channels via a nice TiVo interface with picture quality that exceeds what they get from cable. But I think that is all the more reason digital television should be left alone for long enough for the general population to rediscover it. If you consider the initial year or two after the conversion was pretty transitional with converter boxes and a lot of confusion. So we have only had maybe 4 solid years post conversion for the public to consider OTA. It won't be nearly enough for many people but I think given the opportunity it will continue to grow to a respectable number of homes. I even propose there could even be the potential for new broadcast stations if the demand is there.

And yes on occasion cable offers some bundles where they may claim to offer TV for $20 per month, but most of the time that is the bare minimum channels which is usually less than whats available for free OTA. The numbers I see say the average price for cable TV is around $87 per month and continuing to rise.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TeamPace said:


> You also are likely in the minority in that you watch more "non network" content. TiVo notes that something like 80% of the most recorded shows are network shows.


TIVO Research (and Nielsen) show that very few watch TV that is not live, and skip commercials, which if one thinks about it, the CFO, now acting CEO as well as RoVi could look at and see no big fallout to abandoning SkipMode.



TeamPace said:


> I even propose there could even be the potential for new broadcast stations if the demand is there.


Certainly you jest.

First, many OTA Stations are going away and as stated, TV needs a dual revenue structure to survive now. Otherwise, there will be nothing you want to see OTA.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Certainly you jest.
> 
> First, many OTA Stations are going away and as stated, TV needs a dual revenue structure to survive now. Otherwise, there will be nothing you want to see OTA.


Yeah, I realize new stations are not going to happen with things where they are today. But my point was it could have been very different if digital OTA TV gotten a much earlier start, better promotion, etc. Undoubtedly I'm probably in the minority here but I just think digital OTA has much greater potential than has been realized. Just an opinion. And doesn't OTA actually have a dual revenue stream now? Advertising dollars and rebroadcast fees? I'm not suggesting that cable would or should ever go away but it could have had to compete more with OTA under a little different scenario in how things have developed.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TeamPace said:


> Yeah, I realize new stations are not going to happen with things where they are today. But my point was it could have been very different if digital OTA TV gotten a much earlier start, better promotion, etc. Undoubtedly I'm probably in the minority here but I just think digital OTA has much greater potential than has been realized. Just an opinion. And doesn't OTA actually have a dual revenue stream now? Advertising dollars and rebroadcast fees? I'm not suggesting that cable would or should ever go away but it could have had to compete more with OTA under a little different scenario in how things have developed.


You do not pay retransmission for OTA and you want them to promote OTA?

Really?

You can blame cable companies for creating the scenario.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TeamPace said:


> There is definitely a segment of "cord nevers" who mostly stream content. But many of them are just at a point in their lives that regular TV viewing isn't that important to them, and convenience is more important. But those tastes are likely to change over time as that population ages and has families.


True, but I don't think that will cause a swell in OTA usage. I think that will drive people to cable/satellite. Or not, if they are just used to not having it.



> You also are likely in the minority in that you watch more "non network" content. TiVo notes that something like 80% of the most recorded shows are network shows.


Where did you get that statistic from? That sounds ridiculously high considering how much content there is on non-network platforms, and how low the quality is of a lot of the network stuff.



> I also find many people don't really know what is available via OTA today. Either they have just never had much exposure to OTA or if they have it was from the pre-digital days when you had the choice of maybe 6 or 8 channels that were snowy or full of ghosting. Not really very useable or desirable. I find people are very surprised when they see I receive 50 channels via a nice TiVo interface with picture quality that exceeds what they get from cable.


The 50 channels thing is exactly the same claim that the cable and satellite providers use to claim you get 400 channels. Yeah, 50 channels, and 45 of them are junk that almost no one wants. Just like cable where 350+ of the 400 are junk that nobody wants. You're still getting WAY more on cable.



> And yes on occasion cable offers some bundles where they may claim to offer TV for $20 per month, but most of the time that is the bare minimum channels which is usually less than whats available for free OTA. The numbers I see say the average price for cable TV is around $87 per month and continuing to rise.


It's not that the TV is really that cheap, it's just that they gouge you for internet if you don't bundle. It's illegal and anti-competitive, but that's what at least Comcast does. Some other cable providers are better about it though, especially the smaller ones that don't make much money on TV due to high programming costs.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> First, many OTA Stations are going away and as stated, TV needs a dual revenue structure to survive now. Otherwise, there will be nothing you want to see OTA.


A lot of the high quality content has already moved off of OTA and onto cable channels, although I'm surprised that more hasn't followed suit. At some point, OTA channels may exist just as local news and low-quality syndicated content, with everything that anyone wants on pay tv.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Where did you get that statistic from? That sounds ridiculously high considering how much content there is on non-network platforms, and how low the quality is of a lot of the network stuff.


I have seen that quote from TiVo on more than one occasion, mostly in marketing for their OTA model when it was available. However just Google "most watched TV shows". I just did and the list I found only had about two cable TV shows in the top 30 most watched shows.



Bigg said:


> The 50 channels thing is exactly the same claim that the cable and satellite providers use to claim you get 400 channels. Yeah, 50 channels, and 45 of them are junk that almost no one wants. Just like cable where 350+ of the 400 are junk that nobody wants. You're still getting WAY more on cable.


That's true on both accounts. But I do find that I tend to have access to the majority of the most popular shows with OTA. I'm not arguing that there isn't value and much more choice by having pay TV. I'm just making the point that there is plenty of entertainment available for free via OTA. It's simply a choice on how you want to spend your money. For many cable is well worth the cost. One case is sports junkies. There just isn't a better option for the maximum amount of sports than pay TV.



Bigg said:


> It's not that the TV is really that cheap, it's just that they gouge you for internet if you don't bundle. It's illegal and anti-competitive, but that's what at least Comcast does. Some other cable providers are better about it though, especially the smaller ones that don't make much money on TV due to high programming costs.


I'm paying $45 for standard internet through Time Warner. Friends of mine with the same internet plus basic digital cable (no premium channels) are paying $161 per month.


----------



## neurocutie (Mar 14, 2016)

TeamPace said:


> I'm paying $45 for standard internet through Time Warner. Friends of mine with the same internet plus basic digital cable (no premium channels) are paying $161 per month.


yes but it won't be long before you'll have to add at least $30/mo to that $45/mo if you plan on stream-watching anything (Netflix, Hulu, etc)... especially after the TWC/Charter merger happens.

As for now, I'll bet your $160/mo friends *could* knock down their monthlies to about $120/mo with a little pressure and negotiation... (I did: TWC standard Internet + standard cable TV for $110 including 1 set top box and 2 Tivo/CC's).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It's not that the TV is really that cheap, it's just that they gouge you for internet if you don't bundle. It's illegal and anti-competitive, but that's what at least Comcast does. Some other cable providers are better about it though, especially the smaller ones that don't make much money on TV due to high programming costs.
> ...............


WHy would that be illegal? Paying less for an item in a bundle and more for an individual item is nothing new. And it certainly is not illegal. Plus it is the norm. Most cable companies do it.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

neurocutie said:


> yes but it won't be long before you'll have to add at least $30/mo to that $45/mo if you plan on stream-watching anything (Netflix, Hulu, etc)... especially after the TWC/Charter merger happens.


Huh? Because of data caps? Does Charter cap? I am so glad I won't have to go through that.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

OTA is living on borrowed time, digital gave it that. Anyone remember what analog (aka ghost city) looked like, I had to watch TV that way before the cable company could come out once. After the the 5 major networks and PBS there is no original content, there are stations with 10 sd subchannels, I hate to say it but when the boomers die off, OTA will probably go with it, if it lasts that long. Will I have to pay more if I can't pull the free signals out of air, well...wait now I have all this devices to record said signals and I pay taxes. Explain the free part to me???


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I think this whole thing is a misdirect. OTA is just a technology and one that is limited.
Even the networks have less interest in them because you cannot measure as easily or go interactive.

The real issue that some people want to go OTA is money. If thats the case just get lifeline service from your cable company. 

I do see many other providers on the horizon whether it be more streaming services or cell provided services but the simple answer is they are all going to cost unless you go with the lifeline service.

I would bet all the OTA are still paying for their high speed service.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

zalusky said:


> The real issue that some people want to go OTA is money. If thats the case just get lifeline service from your cable company.


Lifeline cable service is largely a pre-Clinton (the male) concept.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Wil said:


> Lifeline cable service is largely a pre-Clinton (the male) concept.


I'm not sure what you mean, but it's $20/month from my cable feed. My mother has POTS for $24 a month also.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> I'm not sure what you mean, but it's $20/month from my cable feed. My mother has POTS for $24 a month also.


When cable was regulated it was $7-$12 and nearly universal. Last time I checked my provider it was about $40 in a city where a bent coat hanger antenna would get you about 25 channels including some nice retros you can't get from cable at any price.


----------



## wizbang_fl (Jan 2, 2012)

Cable and Internet are all well and good until you have a major storm (Hurricane, Blizzard, Ice Storm) The last hurricane we had in Florida (Wilma) had power out 2 weeks and cable out over a month. We had a generator and thanks to a Tivo box, (I was able to setup a dongle on my mobile phone to do a sync to tivo) and OTA antenna we could keep in touch with the outside world. With all the dependence on internet and cable service providers they are becoming the center of too many services.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

tenthplanet said:


> OTA is living on borrowed time, digital gave it that. Anyone remember what analog (aka ghost city) looked like, I had to watch TV that way before the cable company could come out once. After the the 5 major networks and PBS there is no original content, there are stations with 10 sd subchannels, I hate to say it but when the boomers die off, OTA will probably go with it, if it lasts that long. Will I have to pay more if I can't pull the free signals out of air, well...wait now I have all this devices to record said signals and I pay taxes. Explain the free part to me???


Analog OTA looked great if you had the proper antenna for your location. We watched it in the 70's and my GF had it until the digital transition. There was no ghosting to worry about if things were setup properly.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

zalusky said:


> The real issue that some people want to go OTA is money. If thats the case just get lifeline service from your cable company.


I suppose that is true. When I worked for a cable company, we have a box on every television and all channels enabled including PPV. I would never have considered an antenna at that time. I did not, however, consider an antenna when I was paying for cable either. Then I moved into a new development and the cable company wanted $5k to run cable to my house. We got an antenna. By the time my kids were approaching school age, my street was cabled and we were being inundated with promotions. I succumbed to peer pressure and subscribed. After a couple years of snowy channels and frequent outages, we switched to Dish. So that was not about money. When my Dish + internet + local phone + local long distance + long distance + HD topped $220/month, we consolidated with a cable bundle. That was about money and convenience. When the cable company switched to digital and wanted a monthly fee for my analog televisions then moved the good programming (like HD local channels) to a frequency that required a box to tune then I switched back to an antenna. It was a little about money but it was a lot about F* Comcast. Since then, I have used about half my savings to buy antennas, DVRs, and other toys. Now I have a DVR on every television. For me to replicate the functionality of my current infrastructure with my cable company would cost more than $200/month. So, now it's a bit about money and even more about quality of service.



zalusky said:


> I would bet all the OTA are still paying for their high speed service.


I do pay for high speed internet. My in-laws do not. My brother in law pays for DSL. I could get rid of my high speed internet and get my internet service via my mobile provider, but I'm only paying $45/month and that rate is guaranteed for life. So, I guess that is about money too. On the other hand, except for my TiVos, I do not actually need high speed internet at all.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> Analog OTA looked great if you had the proper antenna for your location. We watched it in the 70's and my GF had it until the digital transition. There was no ghosting to worry about if things were setup properly.


 Not an option for many apartment dwellers.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tenthplanet said:


> Not an option for many apartment dwellers.


VHF yes, UHF was/is much easier.

Hopefully ATSC 3.0 will help VHF with its penetration into structures, though UHF will always be easier (and that is why Google & Wireless Data Providers want that Spectrum).


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> VHF yes, UHF was/is much easier.
> 
> Hopefully ATSC 3.0 will help VHF with its penetration into structures, though UHF will always be easier (and that is why Google & Wireless Data Providers want that Spectrum).


 UHF is more prone to multipath.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

TeamPace said:


> There is definitely a segment of "cord nevers" who mostly stream content. But many of them are just at a point in their lives that regular TV viewing isn't that important to them, and convenience is more important. But those tastes are likely to change over time as that population ages and has families.
> 
> You also are likely in the minority in that you watch more "non network" content. TiVo notes that something like 80% of the most recorded shows are network shows.
> 
> ...


 The general population wouldn't like much beyond the 5 nets and PBS. The market for all the recycled stuff is not as big as you think. Most cord nevers would rather stream something new.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> The general population wouldn't like much beyond the 5 nets and PBS. The market for all the recycled stuff is not as big as you think. Most cord nevers would rather stream something new.


Exactly. The 5 nets and PBS is generous. More like the 4 nets and maybe PBS. But that's all some people want/need.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tenthplanet said:


> The general population wouldn't like much beyond the 5 nets and PBS. The market for all the recycled stuff is not as big as you think. Most cord nevers would rather stream something new.


You're probably right, but the general population probably wouldn't like much beyond the networks even if they had cable. If you look at ratings from 3/16, the only cable programs that compete with the top ten broadcast programs are Walking Dead and the GOP Debate.

1b	THE BIG BANG THEORY	*CBS	9.0* 14,703
2b	LITTLE BIG SHOTS	*NBC	8.5* 14,999
3b	VOICE-TUE	*NBC	8.2* 13,536
4b	VOICE	*NBC	8.1* 13,447
5b	LITTLE BIG SHOTS 3/8	*NBC	7.8* 12,814
1c	CNN FL GOP DEBATE	*CNN	7.2* 11,808
2c	WALKING DEAD	*AMC	6.8* 12,530
6b	BLUE BLOODS	*CBS	6.2* 9,834
7b	VOICE 3/9	*NBC	5.8* 9,193
8b	NCIS: NEW ORLEANS-SPECIAL	*CBS	5.5* 8,484
9b	SURVIVOR	*CBS	5.5* 9,265
10b	60 MINUTES	*CBS	5.4* 8,742

Of those, I only watched Big Bang.

But maybe you are wrong. Check out the top 100 syndicated shows. The top syndicated shows compare favorably to the top cable shows.

I don't think I watch the Big Five more than a few hours a week (except during football season) -- ABC on Wednesday, CBS on Thursday, and weather in the morning.

We get three PBS stations and their subchannels, a CBS and Decades, three ABCs, Heroes and Icons, and MeTV, an NBC and This TV, a Fox with Movies and Laff, a MyTV, a CW with BuzzTV, Cozi, The Works, Bounce, GetTV, Escape, and ION with Qubo and Ion Life. That's a lot of pretty good 'recycled stuff'.

PBS's sub-channels (Create, Explore, Kids, World) are very similar to a lot of the 'cable filler channels' -- except that there is more HD programming and commercials are supplemented with fund raisers.

I watch the 'recycled stuff' most of the time. I watch a lot of movies on Movies! and This TV. The same sitcoms I watch on ABC and CBS are on WLVI (CW) and WSBK (MyTV) except they run five days a week and are part of a block of television which includes other really good sitcoms (I used to record a block of WSBK from 3-8pm m-f).

Lifetime, Oxygen, E, HGTV, Food Network, Comedy Central, TV Land, Bravo, A&E, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, Travel Channel, EWTN, TBS, USA, SyFy, TNT, Spike TV, Hallmark Channel, MTV, BET, Discovery Family Channel, Science Channel, Destination America, Investigation Discovery, OWN, Viceland, Esquire Network, National Geographic, DIY -- this is filler TV. AMC has had some terrific shows, but just one or two at a time...and none right now.

The TV market is pretty fragmented. There is a lower threshold for success and people have a lot of options. It costs $100 to put an antenna in your attic. Might be worth a c-note to see what you're missing.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tenthplanet said:


> UHF is more prone to multipath.


Which more error correction available in ATSC 3.0, not to mention a better modulation scheme, remedies.

There is a reason why Wireless Companies want UHF and not VHF Frequencies.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

wizwor said:


> We get three PBS stations and their subchannels, a CBS and Decades, three ABCs, Heroes and Icons, and MeTV, an NBC and This TV, a Fox with Movies and Laff, a MyTV, a CW with BuzzTV, Cozi, The Works, Bounce, GetTV, Escape, and ION with Qubo and Ion Life. That's a lot of pretty good 'recycled stuff'.
> 
> PBS's sub-channels (Create, Explore, Kids, World) are very similar to a lot of the 'cable filler channels' -- except that there is more HD programming and commercials are supplemented with fund raisers.
> 
> ...


An OTA user says all of their minor channels aren't filler but claims all of cable is. Go figure.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> An OTA user says all of their minor channels aren't filler but claims all of cable is. Go figure.


Actually I am fairly sure we all think about the same thing: The stuff I watch is the good stuff -everything else is useless filler 

Why anyone not involved in making money from TV is concerned about what other people like or don't like escapes me. We should all be concerned with anything that forcibly limits choice and we should all support actions that increase choice.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> An OTA user says all of their minor channels aren't filler but claims all of cable is. Go figure.


The obvious difference being in the value proposition of each. Reruns of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century are potentially a no-cost value add to OTA, while yet another inane channel from Viacom, Disney, etc., in my cable bill tends to make the monthly bill increase.

Both are filling up the Guide, while the new cable channel also fills up the cable bill.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

43 of my 51 season passes are on Cable and Premium cable channels.

Of the 8 season passes on Broadcast:
One is probably a goner - SYTYCD
One is at the end of my priority list - Greys Anatomy
The rest are PBS - This Old House/Ask This Old House and some cooking shows.

The value proposition works well for me.

Its not about filling up the guide. Its about what you watch and to me all the good shows are on Cable: From Walking Dead to OJ to Shameless to Hockey......
Netflix fills up the rest of my time.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I have OTA and cable. But I watch my local recordings from the cable not OTA. OTA is really just a backup which is rarely ever needed.

With my two Bolts I have around 185 One Passes. only 12% of my One Passes are from local stations that can be received from OTA. The other 88% or 163 One Passes are from cable stations.

The majority of shows I watch are from what wizor called "filler stations". When if anything it's seems like the OTA stations are more like "filler stations" nowadays.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I have OTA and cable. But I watch my local recordings from the cable not OTA. OTA is really just a backup which is rarely ever needed.


One of the many things I like about my Tivo HD is that it integrates OTA & cable (for when I HAVE cable) and we select the OTA locals because they look noticeably better the cable versions. Also my cable provider does not carry all of the filler sub channels, the retro stuff, and we like to have that.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Wil said:


> One of the many things I like about my Tivo HD is that it integrates OTA & cable (for when I HAVE cable). The OTA locals are noticeably better to me than the cable versions. Also my cable provider does not carry all of the filler sub channels, the retro stuff, and we like to have that.


I have FiOS. They don't further compress the local broadcasts so they are at least equal to what is broadcast OTA. And sometimes actually better since they have a fiber feed from the local stations(Comcast does also but they compress it further). I've seen sometimes when they stuff something extra into the OTA sub-channels that the broadcast on cable, for the main station, will actually look better and have a higher bitrate than what ends up being shown from OTA.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I have FiOS. They don't further compress the local broadcasts


Thanks. We have FIOS at a seasonal home and I had never really checked that out, assuming it was probably the same as our normal cable feed, which is bad. FIOS also carries about 12 of the 13 OTA filler channels we like, a much higher proportion than at home.

FIOS is really nice in many ways, in my brief experience. Unfortunately by the time we go back it will have transitioned to Frontier.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> I have FiOS. They don't further compress the local broadcasts so they are at least equal to what is broadcast OTA. And sometimes actually better since they have a fiber feed from the local stations(Comcast does also but they compress it further). I've seen sometimes when they stuff something extra into the OTA sub-channels that the broadcast on cable, for the main station, will actually look better and have a higher bitrate than what ends up being shown from OTA.


I have no way to tell what my broadcast stations actually transmit. Both the CBS and NBC affiliates have no subchannels. When I receive them on my cable feed, the bit rate is about 18.7Mbps. My Fox feed is about 13.2Mbps and it has two subchannels OTA. Now both my cable feed of CBS and NBC also share a channel with 720p channel, so I can't explain the numbers or if it would be better OTA. Like politics, all cable is local.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> I have no way to tell what my broadcast stations actually transmit. Both the CBS and NBC affiliates have no subchannels. When I receive them on my cable feed, the bit rate is about 18.7Mbps. My Fox feed is about 13.2Mbps and it has two subchannels OTA. Now both my cable feed of CBS and NBC also share a channel with 720p channel, so I can't explain the numbers or if it would be better OTA. Like politics, all cable is local.


Yes. the less sub-channels the better. The more sub-channels and the worse it will look.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wizwor said:


> You're probably right, but the general population probably wouldn't like much beyond the networks even if they had cable. If you look at ratings from 3/16, the only cable programs that compete with the top ten broadcast programs are Walking Dead and the GOP Debate.


No. You're conflating two different issues. OTA main channels vs. subchannels and networks vs. cable. The viewership of the sub-channels is very, very limited. Here's the thing though. While OTA has basically 5 channels anybody wants and dozens of fillers, cable has dozens that people actually want, and hundreds of fillers. So even though cable doesn't have any single channel or program rated as highly as the networks, there is a LOT of viewership spread out among many channels and shows on cable, versus the viewership that is highly concentrated on OTA.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Bigg said:


> No. You're conflating two different issues. OTA main channels vs. subchannels and networks vs. cable. The viewership of the sub-channels is very, very limited. Here's the thing though. While OTA has basically 5 channels anybody wants and dozens of fillers, cable has dozens that people actually want, and hundreds of fillers. So even though cable doesn't have any single channel or program rated as highly as the networks, there is a LOT of viewership spread out among many channels and shows on cable, versus the viewership that is highly concentrated on OTA.


I would also guess that the more valuable affluent viewers are viewing the cable shows. Younger viewers may not use cable but they probably have alternate ways to view many of the same shows.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

trip1eX said:


> An OTA user says all of their minor channels aren't filler but claims all of cable is. Go figure.


First, people make choices. People who like what is on cable pay for that. People who like what is available over the air, pay for that. Second, If you have not sampled the channels I listed, then you have no business characterizing them as minor. The fact is that the channels I listed are airing some of the best programming of the last century. If a nipple or curse word in high definition are your definition of quality television, by all means patronize HBO. I am quite delighted to sample some of the best programming of the last century for the cost of an antenna.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> No. You're conflating two different issues. OTA main channels vs. subchannels and networks vs. cable. The viewership of the sub-channels is very, very limited. Here's the thing though. While OTA has basically 5 channels anybody wants and dozens of fillers, cable has dozens that people actually want, and hundreds of fillers. So even though cable doesn't have any single channel or program rated as highly as the networks, there is a LOT of viewership spread out among many channels and shows on cable, versus the viewership that is highly concentrated on OTA.


You need to support your claims with data. I provided data that suggests people prefer broadcast programming to cable and that syndicated programming is more popular than cable television. I had cable for most of my life and I had UNLIMITED cable for a decade. I am not speculating. HBO invented binge watching by pulling popular programming for indefinite periods and charging people disconnect and reconnect fees for daring to be unhappy with that.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> I have OTA and cable. But I watch my local recordings from the cable not OTA. OTA is really just a backup which is rarely ever needed.


Have to wonder why. Aren't OTA recordings better quality?



aaronwt said:


> With my two Bolts I have around 185 One Passes. only 12% of my One Passes are from local stations that can be received from OTA. The other 88% or 163 One Passes are from cable stations.
> 
> The majority of shows I watch are from what wizor called "filler stations". When if anything it's seems like the OTA stations are more like "filler stations" nowadays.


185 One Passes? OMG, you are special. I would characterize you as a niche viewer. PLEASE post a list of your 185 favorite shows.

BTW, it's Wizwor. As in Wizard of Wor.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

zalusky said:


> I would also guess that the more valuable affluent viewers are viewing the cable shows. Younger viewers may not use cable but they probably have alternate ways to view many of the same shows.


I prefer the term Price Insensitive. When I worked for the local cable provider, we had a box on every tv and every box was enabled for every channel including pay per view. That was awesome. It was TOTALLY worth $0.00 to have this service. Now I have to choose a tier of programming and decide if I want a DVR or not or HD or SD. It matters. I paid for my kids to go to college and gave each a brand new car. I have a half million in GE stock and my home is paid for. Absolutely, cost matters. Absolutely. Same with TiVo vs Channel Master's DVR+. We all make choices based on value.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> I have FiOS. They don't further compress the local broadcasts so they are at least equal to what is broadcast OTA. And sometimes actually better since they have a fiber feed from the local stations(Comcast does also but they compress it further). I've seen sometimes when they stuff something extra into the OTA sub-channels that the broadcast on cable, for the main station, will actually look better and have a higher bitrate than what ends up being shown from OTA.


Your imagination.

FiOS and other MVPDs on a fiber feed get the exact same 19.2Mbps ASI signal the station feeds to its transmitter.

There is NO separate MPEG2 Encoder or feed for the MVPDs. The feed is identical of what they feed the transmitter, unlike Netflix.

What the MVPD that have a fiber feed decide to do with that on their system is then up to them. But there is no extra bitrate in the fiber feed to MVPD v OTA.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=539451


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> No. You're conflating two different issues. OTA main channels vs. subchannels and networks vs. cable. The viewership of the sub-channels is very, very limited. Here's the thing though. While OTA has basically 5 channels anybody wants and dozens of fillers, cable has dozens that people actually want, and hundreds of fillers. So even though cable doesn't have any single channel or program rated as highly as the networks, there is a LOT of viewership spread out among many channels and shows on cable, versus the viewership that is highly concentrated on OTA.





wizwor said:


> You need to support your claims with data. I provided data that suggests people prefer broadcast programming to cable and that syndicated programming is more popular than cable television. I had cable for most of my life and I had UNLIMITED cable for a decade. I am not speculating. HBO invented binge watching by pulling popular programming for indefinite periods and charging people disconnect and reconnect fees for daring to be unhappy with that.


Study after study, from MSO or Nielsen, OTA Networks represents right about ~35 % of the viewing.

That is clearly less than 50%, so yes, as a whole, Cable Channels have more viewing spread across their "500 Channels" v the OTA Networks.

However, that said, the OTA Networks have a lopsided majority per Network.

This can be seen in the ratings you posted where everything was over 2 Million a25-54, yet only 22 "syndicated" shows all year had over 2 million - and 11 of those were ESPN Sports such as MNF and MNF Preshow etc.

So while cable has the majority of viewers, they are so diluted that OTA Networks dominate the ratings.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

zalusky said:


> I would also guess that the more valuable affluent viewers are viewing the cable shows. Younger viewers may not use cable but they probably have alternate ways to view many of the same shows.


In my experience, all of the affluent people I know don't have time to watch much TV, let alone the effluent present on most channels.  They are affluent because they are not wasting their money on crap. They are busy working, raising families, etc. Linearly-programmed TV is no longer a priority for people with money.

Seriously, the demographics of who is watching these terrible cable shows cannot actually be that attractive to advertisers. I am related to a lot of them, and they don't actually have any money to spend on whatever it is the ads are trying to sell them.

Sports and a dwindling handful of decent, non-network content is the only thing people in the prime 18-35 age range are watching on cable where I live. That is assuming they are watching cable at all and not watching Netflix, etc. The audience is fractured, and the eyeballs are looking every which way.

If Tivo really wanted to make money, they would do it by selling advertisers data on who is watching what and when, in near real time, and then having a marketplace for advertisers to bid on viewers' eyeballs at that moment. Web advertising has gone this way, and it has driven up prices for advertising to the point that online news is actually making decent money these days.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Seriously! This is the golden age of television. There is more choice and better writing now than ever. Yes there is schlock out there but there is a lot of good stuff.

The OJ thing going on now is great. Fargo seasons 1/2 were great. Bates Motel is a lot of fun. Silicon Valley is starting up soon. Homeland will be on in the fall.

Netflix has good stuff.

I ignore the concept of linear programming. I just watch things on my DVR.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Your imagination.
> 
> FiOS and other MVPDs on a fiber feed get the exact same 19.2Mbps ASI signal the station feeds to its transmitter.
> 
> ...


The above is not always correct.

My local NBC/ABC affiliate, WALB, broadcasts the following OTA:

10-1 NBC 1080i
10-2 ABC 720p
10-3 GRIT 480i

Mediacom, DirecTV, DISH Network, etc. receive the exact same 1080i NBC feed that WALB broadcasts OTA, and I assume Mediacom gets the same 480i feed of GRIT.

When WALB launched ABC in 2011, it was 480i OTA, and WALB provided Mediacom, DirecTV, DISH, etc. a special 1080i (yes, I said 1080i) feed of their ABC signal. Obviously, the ABC programming is upconverted... I'm not sure about the local content or syndicated programming.

Sometime later, WALB got better encoders and upgraded the OTA ABC signal from 480i to 720p. The MVPD's still get the 1080i feed. The station takes the 1080i feed, downconverts it to get the 720p feed, and then compresses it further to get the feed which is broadcast OTA.

So. DirecTV, DISH Network, and Mediacom get a superior feed to what it available OTA.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. The 5 nets and PBS is generous. More like the 4 nets and maybe PBS. But that's all some people want/need.


While the number of viewers was always higher on the big four networks, The CW actually beat several of the 4 networks in the ratings on several occasions last year (this isn't a normal thing obviously). This says more about the ratings on three of the big four networks than it does The CW, but don't discount it.

Univision (one of the Spanish-language networks anyway... I'm thinking it was Univision) was beating NBC in the ratings for a while. Again, this says more about NBC than it does Univision...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Alan Gordon said:


> The above is not always correct.
> 
> My local NBC/ABC affiliate, WALB, broadcasts the following OTA:
> 
> ...


I hAve detailed ideas about putting MPEG4 encoders for Direct and Dish in Network O&Os in Top 10 markets for higher bitrate of the main channel - and even a 38.81mbps for fiOS in MPEG2 and how it went nowhere- no interest from MVPDs.

I am aware of how in small TV Markets like #152 where there are so few stations that 3 Networks are on 1 Station that full resolution signals are sent to to cable head end because of the OTA limitations. That happens in multiple SMALL markets with multiple networks on the same station.

And just as most systems do not carry LPTV stations, in those small markets where a LPTV is used for a major Network (such as the CBS in Wilmington, NC that is on a LPTV).

However, in the Top 25 Markets, where 50% of the USA TV Households are, the fiber feeds mirror the MPEG2 19.3Mbps ATSC 1.0 ASI Studio to Transmitter Feed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I would also guess that the more valuable affluent viewers are viewing the cable shows. Younger viewers may not use cable but they probably have alternate ways to view many of the same shows.


There is definitely an economic bias on cable/satellite, but I'm not sure it's as big as you think. When I drive through our local low-income urban area, it looks like someone is farming DirecTV dishes. I don't know if they're watching english-language programming or not, if they just have them for the Yankees, which the local cable company doesn't carry, or what.



wizwor said:


> The fact is that the channels I listed are airing some of the best programming of the last century. If a nipple or curse word in high definition are your definition of quality television, by all means patronize HBO. I am quite delighted to sample some of the best programming of the last century for the cost of an antenna.


Most people don't want old re-runs. HBO produces some of the best, most provocative, deepest content out there, and they spend a ton of money doing it. HBO and PBS are my two biggest sources of content, because I want high-quality, intelligent, provocative content, and that's what they offer. HBO also has some stuff that's just pure entertainment, but it does that with style.



wizwor said:


> Have to wonder why. Aren't OTA recordings better quality?


Many cable providers are passing the OTA signal through without any modification, subchannels and all, so in many markets with a lot of subchannels, they still look like the same garbage that they looked like OTA. DirecTV, OTOH, has their own MPEG-4 encoders in many markets that take a direct HD-SDI feed of the channel before it goes into the MPEG-2 multiplexing and encoding, so in our weird and backwards modern tech world, the best quality feeds are often had by sending the signal 26,200 miles out into space and back, versus a few miles OTA.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Study after study, from MSO or Nielsen, OTA Networks represents right about ~35 % of the viewing.
> 
> ...
> 
> So while cable has the majority of viewers, they are so diluted that OTA Networks dominate the ratings.


That makes a lot more sense!



ncted said:


> In my experience, all of the affluent people I know don't have time to watch much TV, let alone the effluent present on most channels.


I know of a lot of relatively affluent people who have big TV packages, although there is definitely a generational bias, and I know more and more cord nevers.



Alan Gordon said:


> While the number of viewers was always higher on the big four networks, The CW actually beat several of the 4 networks in the ratings on several occasions last year (this isn't a normal thing obviously). This says more about the ratings on three of the big four networks than it does The CW, but don't discount it.
> 
> Univision (one of the Spanish-language networks anyway... I'm thinking it was Univision) was beating NBC in the ratings for a while. Again, this says more about NBC than it does Univision...


That sounds like an anomaly. The CW is a pretty minor player compared to the other ones.

Well, look at the number of spanish-speaking people in the United States, and then look at the number of major spanish networks, basically just Univision and Telemundo, and that should answer your question right there.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I hAve detailed ideas about putting MPEG4 encoders for Direct and Dish in Network O&Os in Top 10 markets for higher bitrate of the main channel - and even a 38.81mbps for fiOS in MPEG2 and how it went nowhere- no interest from MVPDs.


Well DirecTV already does that, just not at anywhere close to that bitrate due to their own satellite limitations. The one I'd really like is a full-bitrate feed of ESPN at 15mbps MPEG-4. Google Fiber offers it, and supposedly Rainier Satellite is going to eventually offer full packages through C-Band, but they only have a couple of channels at the moment. One of these streaming OTT offerings could do it technically, it wouldn't be that hard to stream 15-20mbps over the internet at this point.

I somehow know that Comcast will never do it, even when they covert to all-IP and have the bandwidth to not re-compress. Verizon shouldn't have an issue doing it over IP, but they don't seem to have much interest.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am aware of how in small TV Markets like #152 where there are so few stations that 3 Networks are on 1 Station that full resolution signals are sent to to cable head end because of the OTA limitations. That happens in multiple SMALL markets with multiple networks on the same station.


My bad! I did not see where you specified that you were referring to the top markets only.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That sounds like an anomaly. The CW is a pretty minor player compared to the other ones.


The instances were anomalies, but an anomaly that wouldn't have happened years ago. The ratings on the big four (including CBS to a lesser extent) has been declining, and The CW has one of their biggest hits for years in "The Flash". The # of viewers for ABC, NBC, and FOX were still higher, but The CW came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th last year for the first time in the all important ratings demos.

It's funny. In my DMA, The CW is on a sub-channel of the "local" CBS affiliate. In several of my surrounding counties, this "local" CBS can't be received OTA. Mediacom carries the channel in both SD and HD. DirecTV carries it in SD, and DISH Network doesn't carry it at all. While I know one person who wouldn't switch from Mediacom to DISH Network because they didn't carry it, most people I know simply doesn't know the channel exists.

From September through May, 90+ % of my TV viewing is from the broadcast networks. Ironically, The CW is one of my favorite broadcast network channels, but the only channel I can't receive in HD.



Bigg said:


> Well, look at the number of spanish-speaking people in the United States, and then look at the number of major spanish networks, basically just Univision and Telemundo, and that should answer your question right there.


It still says more about the decline in NBC's ratings compared to Univision, Telemundo, Telefutura, etc...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Well DirecTV already does that, just not at anywhere close to that bitrate due to their own satellite limitations. The one I'd really like is a full-bitrate feed of ESPN at 15mbps MPEG-4. Google Fiber offers it, and supposedly Rainier Satellite is going to eventually offer full packages through C-Band, but they only have a couple of channels at the moment. One of these streaming OTT offerings could do it technically, it wouldn't be that hard to stream 15-20mbps over the internet at this point.
> 
> I somehow know that Comcast will never do it, even when they covert to all-IP and have the bandwidth to not re-compress. Verizon shouldn't have an issue doing it over IP, but they don't seem to have much interest.


DirecTV does NOT have MPEG4 Encoders in Stations. They have them in the market at a central collection point.

They receive OTA and convert it to MPEG4 for the backhaul or have a fiber feed to the collection site and convert it to MPEG4 for the backhaul.

The MPEG4 have no more bitrate at the encoding process than either 1) OTA or 2) the MPEG2 19.2 ASI Feed to the transmitter if fiber fed.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Alan Gordon said:


> It still says more about the decline in NBC's ratings compared to Univision, Telemundo, Telefutura, etc...


Season wise, NBC was #1 P18-49 last year and a close #2 in 2014. It's neck and neck this year, with NBC leading the first half of the season.

None of the Spanish station come close for the whole season. If they are lucky, they MIGHT beat one of the big 4 on a single night, but nothing like you are portraying it.

And just because the CW was (barely) #1 P18-49 for 1 new episode of the Flash when all 4 of the big OTA networks were in re-runs, it does not mean a whole lot.



Alan Gordon said:


> The CW came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th last year for the first time in the all important ratings demos.


Absolute FUD. You need better sources.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Season wise, NBC was #1 P18-49 last year and a close #2 in 2014. It's neck and neck this year, with NBC leading the first half of the season.


All the broadcast networks have experienced reduced ratings. I was singling out NBC because NBC got beat by the Spanish nets on multiple occasions.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> None of the Spanish station come close for the whole season. If they are lucky, they MIGHT beat one of the big 4 on a single night, but nothing like you are portraying it.


I was referring to multiple single nights. I was in NO WAY trying to insinuate that the Spanish stations REGULARLY beat NBC or any of the other broadcast networks.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And just because the CW was (barely) #1 P18-49 for 1 new episode of the Flash when all 4 of the big OTA networks were in re-runs, it does not mean a whole lot.


I believe it happened more than once (if memory serves), but no more than a few. I never stated that it meant a whole lot... just that it wouldn't have happened 5+ years ago.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Absolute FUD. You need better sources.


How is that "Fear", "Uncertainty" or "Doubt"?

I like TVByTheNumbers. I don't feel the need for better sources...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wizwor said:


> Have to wonder why. Aren't OTA recordings better quality?
> 
> .....


because FiOS doesn't further compress the OTA content. So typically a recording from OTA or FiOS will be the same size. Unlike from Comcast in my area which further compresses the content from local stations causing more macroblocking and other issues.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Your imagination.
> 
> FiOS and other MVPDs on a fiber feed get the exact same 19.2Mbps ASI signal the station feeds to its transmitter.
> 
> ...


I was going by the file size and what the show looked like. It's been rare but I've seen it. This is usually when what is being broadcast OTA has issues. Or when they have extra sub channels going for something like a Sports tournament.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> I was going by the file size and what the show looked like. It's been rare but I've seen it. This is usually when what is being broadcast OTA has issues. Or when they have extra sub channels going for something like a Sports tournament.


Again, its not happening.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Alan Gordon said:


> \
> I like TVByTheNumbers. I don't feel the need for better sources...


You cannot show a link to TVByTheNumbers that shows the CW #2, #3 and #4 in the Advertising Demo for the Week, 4 Week Rating Period or much less the Season as you stated.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, its not happening.


So you're saying that when two separate stations with separate fiber feeds to cable companies share a transmitter for a period while work is being done? That the feed going out OTA is still the same as what is sent from the separate stations over fiber? Because this was not the case.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> So you're saying that when two separate stations with separate fiber feeds to cable companies share a transmitter for a period while work is being done? That the feed going out OTA is still the same as what is sent from the separate stations over fiber? Because this was not the case.


What station in DC are you talking about specifically?

You clearly are not talking about one of the major 4 OTA (or Spanish) Stations as they do not share a single ATSC Channel.

You have also changed your definition of what is happening.

The SAME Signal they WERE feeding to THEIR transmitter is the same FEED they sent to FiOS, even though their Transmitter was NOT ON THE AIR.

Sure, they sent the same Fiber Feed to THE OTHER Station Studio to insert in the other stations 19.2 Mbps ASI feed to their transmitter, as both were on the same ATSC RF Channel while the other Station was off the air...and as a result Station 2 had its bitrate reduced by the primary Station allowing them on their RF Frequency.

So in that specific one time emergency use, the 19.2Mbps from Station 1 which is identical to what they sent to their off air transmitter would have been higher than the reduced bitrate OTA while sharing on Station 2's RF Frequency.

However, you got no better bitrate via FiOS than you did the other 365 days of the year when that Station is typically OTA.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> What station in DC are you talking about specifically?
> 
> You clearly are not talking about one of the major 4 OTA (or Spanish) Stations as they do not share a single ATSC Channel.
> 
> ...


this was when there was some OTA issues. A station ended up sharing with another one on their OTA frequency. At least one of them was a major station. But the OTA feed was degraded for both. On cable there was no degradation of signal. I've been receiving and recording the OTA signals in this area for close to fifteen years now. Alot has gone on during that time period with the stations.

And again I was comparing visual quality as well as the actual recording size/bitrate. They did not come close to matching between the OTA broadcast and the cable broadcast. Usually they will be basically identical.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> this was when there was some OTA issues. A station ended up sharing with another one on their OTA frequency. At least one of them was a major station. But the OTA feed was degraded for both. On cable there was no degradation of signal. I've been receiving and recording the OTA signals in this area for close to fifteen years now. Alot has gone on during that time period with the stations.
> 
> And again I was comparing visual quality as well as the actual recording size/bitrate. They did not come close to matching between the OTA broadcast and the cable broadcast. Usually they will be basically identical.


You used a 1 time event to make it appear something was SOP.

In Large Markets, DC especially, Stations have multiple paths to the Transmitter. Fiber and a backup STL.

Both had Fiber of their normal ATSC 1.0 19.2Mbps ASI feed to FiOS (and the other Cable Companies in the area as well), even though they were not using EITHER fiber feeds at their transmitter.

The primary station re-encoded both signal on a single 19.2Mbps STL feed and sent it to their Transmitter, obviously at a lower bitrate than normal during this emergency.

We both now agree this was something out of the ordinary and is NOT Standard Operating Procedure.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> DirecTV does NOT have MPEG4 Encoders in Stations. They have them in the market at a central collection point.
> 
> They receive OTA and convert it to MPEG4 for the backhaul or have a fiber feed to the collection site and convert it to MPEG4 for the backhaul.
> 
> The MPEG4 have no more bitrate at the encoding process than either 1) OTA or 2) the MPEG2 19.2 ASI Feed to the transmitter if fiber fed.


Somebody on AVSForum with very specific knowledge said that in *some* markets, D* is taking an HD-SDI feed and encoding directly. I'd believe it, as D*'s PQ is way higher than cable/OTA.



aaronwt said:


> because FiOS doesn't further compress the OTA content. So typically a recording from OTA or FiOS will be the same size. Unlike from Comcast in my area which further compresses the content from local stations causing more macroblocking and other issues.


Interesting. Here, Comcast dumps the channels onto cable with no re-compression. And they look way worse than cable channels, as the stations cram so many subchannels of garbage in. At least the cable channels are Comcast's doing with really well set up and high-end encoding gear to tri- and quad-mux channels.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You cannot show a link to TVByTheNumbers that shows the CW #2, #3 and #4 in the Advertising Demo for the Week, 4 Week Rating Period or much less the Season as you stated.


Correct!

I didn't state any of that though...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Alan Gordon said:


> Correct!
> 
> I didn't state any of that though...


I guess you need to re read your post #94



Alan Gordon said:


> The # of viewers for ABC, NBC, and FOX were still higher, but The CW came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th last year for the first time in the all important ratings demos.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I guess you need to re read your post #94





Alan Gordon said:


> The instances were anomalies, but an anomaly that wouldn't have happened years ago. The ratings on the big four (including CBS to a lesser extent) has been declining, and The CW has one of their biggest hits for years in "The Flash". The # of viewers for ABC, NBC, and FOX were still higher, but The CW came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th last year for the first time in the all important ratings demos.





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You cannot show a link to TVByTheNumbers that shows the CW #2, #3 and #4 in the Advertising Demo for the Week, 4 Week Rating Period or much less the Season as you stated.


Nowhere in my post quoted above have I stated that The CW was #2, #3, or #4 in the advertising Demo for the Week, 4 Week Rating Period, or the season.

I was talking about several instances in which The CW has come in #2, #3, or #4 in a *timeslot* last year. Could I have been clearer about that, yes, but I honestly didn't think that anyone would seriously think that The CW would do much more than that (at this time anyway). My apologies to everyone for not clarifying!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Alan Gordon said:


> Nowhere in my post quoted above have I stated that The CW was #2, #3, or #4 in the advertising Demo for the Week, 4 Week Rating Period, or the season.
> 
> I was talking about several instances in which The CW has come in #2, #3, or #4 in a *timeslot* last year. Could I have been clearer about that, yes, but I honestly didn't think that anyone would seriously think that The CW would do much more than that (at this time anyway). My apologies to everyone for not clarifying!


You stated LAST YEAR. That is the 2014-2015 Season.

A Time Slot is Tuesday at 8PM for the Season.

Again, you are talking about A SINGLE NEW EPISODE (of the Flash) when competition NCIS and others were showing reruns.

Again a single Episode.....not "The CW [Network]has come in #2, #3, or #4 last year"


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You stated LAST YEAR. That is the 2014-2015 Season.


As I stated, I could have been clearer about that. The CW came in #2, #3, or #4 during some timeslots *last year* on a few different occasions.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> A Time Slot is Tuesday at 8PM for the Season.
> 
> Again, you are talking about A SINGLE NEW EPISODE (of the Flash) when competition NCIS and others were showing reruns.
> 
> Again a single Episode.....not "The CW [Network]has come in #2, #3, or #4 last year"


This thread has gone WAY off topic, and I have no desire to quibble on my misuse of terminology, so I'll just say you're right and we can move on.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You used a 1 time event to make it appear something was SOP.
> 
> In Large Markets, DC especially, Stations have multiple paths to the Transmitter. Fiber and a backup STL.
> 
> ...


??? I never said this was normal. I said it was a rare occurrence.

EDIT: I guess in my first post about it I didn't use the word "rare" but the word "sometimes". But either way I didn't think I was implying that it was the SOP



> aaronwt said:
> 
> 
> > I have FiOS. They don't further compress the local broadcasts so they are at least equal to what is broadcast OTA. And sometimes actually better since they have a fiber feed from the local stations(Comcast does also but they compress it further).* I've seen sometimes when they stuff something extra into the OTA sub-channels that the broadcast on cable, for the main station, will actually look better and have a higher bitrate than what ends up being shown from OTA.*


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

FCC's Wheeler: Spectrum Auction Could Extend Into FY 2017


Wheeler said:


> FCC chairman Tom Wheeler told a Senate subcommittee April 5 that one of the reasons the FCC is seeking $11 million more in funding for the broadcast incentive auction is that there is no guarantee it won't extend into fiscal year 2017 (which starts in October [the story had initially said it began in July).
> 
> The FCC is hoping the bidding will be done by the third quarter of this year, but Wheeler pointed out that if the auction does not raise enough from wireless carriers to pay broadcasters, the spectrum must be re-auctioned again and again until that happens. He said there was no assurance things will end with one round.
> 
> He also warned that if the FCC does not get the money, the 39-month transition for TV stations to move to new spectrum after the auction won't be enough time, as the National Association of Broadcasters has suggested could be the case anyway.


No one saw this coming...oh wait...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

wizwor said:


> FCC's Wheeler: Spectrum Auction Could Extend Into FY 2017
> 
> No one saw this coming...oh wait...


You do realize that is USG FY 2017 which starts 10/1/2016.

Of course you, no way you could of missed that or Wheelers statement the Forward Auction should end in Q3 2016, just as I had posted previously. However IF (unlikely) it goes to a second round until say end of November, no time line changes.

Of course, an allocation of only $11M is a very low amount so the probability is very low anyway. And since the amount of Spectrum to be cleared is to be decided in the next 2 weeks (2-3 after 3/29 deadline) and the 39 months begins at the end of the REVERSE AUCTION which will be completed this Quarter, again, no change in timeline.

I know you certainly know all that


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> ??? I never said this was normal. I said it was a rare occurrence.
> 
> EDIT: I guess in my first post about it I didn't use the word "rare" but the word "sometimes". But either way I didn't think I was implying that it was the SOP


As everyone goes off on me for every single word, that is why I try to go back and reread every post immediately after it posts and look for any term or use that could be misinterpreted. That is why many of my posts are edited within a minute or 2 after posting - for clarification (or to add another point).

I should not expect others to do the same, but I take posts to mean as written.

Sometimes seemed like a more regular occurrence than in an emergency technical situation. Perhaps that more my issue than yours, but as shown in this thread, someone at AVS said something that is now being treated as Gospel, despite the fact I have worked with key personnel at Directv for years on encoder errors - and was responsible for EVERY MPEG4 Encoder in the entire system being replaced 4 years ago, so I believe I have a little more info on the subject (and no one on SatGuys, dbstalk or AVS was aware of when it happened, market by market as their CE is on the Home Equipment/Receiver side, not technical operations).

So that is all I am/was trying to do....keep something from being past around as historical fact.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> ??? I never said this was normal. I said it was a rare occurrence.
> 
> EDIT: I guess in my first post about it I didn't use the word "rare" but the word "sometimes". But either way I didn't think I was implying that it was the SOP


BTW, what you are describing will start to become common in 2017 and increase in the 2-3 years afterwards when Multiple Station stack their programming on remaining ATSC 1.0 facilities converting their OTA to ATSC 3.0.

Eventually all the programming on these ATSC 1.0 will be down to SD (and most of the ATSC 1.0 Channels will be on Lo VHF and Hi VHF).

ATSC 1.0 OTA will look worse and worse as more programs are added to fewer and fewer ATSC 1.0 facilities - so fiber fed MVPDs will look much better.

So you will begin to see more and more of what you described IN THE FUTURE - and it will not just be during a rare Emergency.


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

I think OTA and cutting the cord is increasing and will continue. I have even been researching and the most watched channels are available in many but not all areas with an antenna. Out of my top 50 SP's 46 of them I can get with an antenna in my NJ area. I can learn to live without the other 4 shows for no cost.

In fact in the last month or so I know 3 people that are working on cutting the cord, 4 counting myself, and I know 4-5 that already did. Not everyone has to overcomplicate everything and needs fancy remotes, DVR's and are fine with a simple antenna hooked to their HDTV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The people I know who are cord cutters/nevers mostly don't have OTA, or if they do, they almost never use it. Myself, I'm keeping my cord nicely attached. The folks who do have cable mostly have it for sports.

Personally though, the only thing that would wrestle my CableCard and TiVo out of my cold, dead hands would be a SWiMLine 3 with SWiM-13 multiswitch mounted with the full tripod and lag screws to structure connected to an HR54 feeding a 4k Genie Mini.


----------

