I'm not talking about the phrase. I'm talking about the action itself. If you're still watching the same programs produced and carried by the cable networks, then you haven't really "cut the cord". If you "cut the cord", that means you don't watch any of the programs from TNT, TBS, AMC, The History Channel, etc. If you're still watching those shows, you haven't "cut the cord".
A lot of the appeal of "cord-cutting", though, is precisely the fact that you still get a lot of content made for cable networks.
Here's an exercise for you and anyone else who tries to "remind everyone that they can get high-quality network programming in HD for free over the air". If that's true, and the amount of "high-quality network programming" is large enough to matter, then it should be easy to compile a list of 24 hours worth of "high-quality" programming available on all of the OTA networks combined. In any given week, there's at least 20 hours of network programming fed by CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, CW, Ion, and all those other networks on the secondary channels. You can throw in the Spanish networks if you want. So, with at least 10 different OTA networks, broadcasting 20 hours a day time 7, that's 1,400 hours of programming.
Out of that 1,400 hours of programming, I challenge anyone to compile a list of 24 hours worth of "high-quality" programming.
Some stipulations.
Re-runs of content from years past do not count as "high-quality".
Infomercials do not count as "high-quality".
Nothing starring Pauly Shore counts as "high-quality".
Live sporting events do not count. They are excluded only to prevent someone from listing 8 different NFL (or MLB, NBA, NHL or NASCAR) broadcasts and saying "There's 24 hours".
I'd only agree to your last rule because if you're only watching OTA for sports, you're not watching OTA-only because of how cable-dependent sports has become.
If we assume Primetime shows are always "high-quality", 3 hours times 3 networks times 6 plus one equals 55 hours right there, before adding Fox or non-primetime stuff, and leaving out Saturdays. Subtracting out Primetime sports would be a drop in the bucket of that total; even subtracting reality shows probably wouldn't get you under 24. Yes, most of what's on in primetime isn't
as high quality as what's on cable, but there's still a lot of shows with millions of people watching.
I do think a number of factors - the rise of cable, consolidation, etc - has left everyone disincentivized to really invest in broadcast and care about it, with even the Big Four seemingly kept going by inertia. You do have to put quality shows on the air to advertise getting them for free, and if you make too many quality shows available over the air, if you make OTA too attractive, you lose that retransmission consent revenue.
People these days try to put the "rabbit ears" on top of the $1000 DTV...and guess what? That's the worse place to put them...a DTV is a PC with a tuner.....it radiates NOISE.......putting any antenna on top or within 5 feet of the TV is a BAD idea..DTV reception areas were decided by the FCC based on 30 foot high outside antennas...
Which was a mistake, unless the goal was to kill OTA TV, because it's basically saying cutting the cord should be equivalent to signing up for satellite, except without anyone having any real motive to install it for you. And we all know how well people in apartments (admittedly closer to the towers), where the young people these days are flocking, can get satellite.
I had a Radio Shack VU90 with a CM7777 (a preamp is recommended to maintain high S/N ratio due to losses in RG6 of any length over 10 ft.....really should be using 70 ohm Heliax or similar but the average TV public would not buy that) 21 ft high, using a home made mast out of top rail fence post and bolted together with three drywall screws at 120 degrees each at the overlapping joint....an eave mount held it at 17 ft....and the mast was stuck in the ground for maybe a foot or so..with the clamp tight enough to hold it but also allow me to hand turn it (armstrong method), it worked just fine...It's easy to do........
Was the last quoted part supposed to be sarcasm? Yes, all that gibberish you spewed out looks completely easy!
If anyone wants OTA TV to not just survive but thrive, part of the goal of ATSC 3.0 should be to maximize ease of reception while minimizing bandwidth consumption. If it can't do that maybe broadcast television SHOULD die. Ideally, after the incentive auction the FCC should calculate coverage areas in part on the ability of a mobile device with embedded antenna to pick up the signal, at least for urban areas and inner suburbs; maybe embedded or built-in antennas on larger, more TV-like devices for areas farther out, with any need to care about direction reserved for the exurbs and maybe far-flung suburbs, areas far enough out that you don't really need to know the exact location of the towers, just the general direction. But there's not even any evidence the FCC is prioritizing ATSC 3.0 at all, certainly not above letting wireless companies run roughshod over broadcast before anyone notices, with it only being serendipity that the auction has now been delayed enough that ATSC 3.0 being completed first is now in reach.
