I commented on another thread which went off topic, but there was a very good discussion with some good advice from Kelly A, and details about other countries from Scott Fybush. I'm hoping someone who can move posts can use this thread to move those to. I can't say whether the people having trouble with digital TV just believed it was too hard to go to so much trouble to solve their problems, and began depending on cable or satellite if they could, or streaming if those options got too expensive. But for at least a few people, there are no options that would make broadcast TV work with an antenna.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Is OTA TV in trouble because of the standard for U.S. digital TV?
- Thread starter vchimpanzee
- Start date
Are you talking about the ATSC 3.0 standard?
I'm talking about what most people are using now.
If I understand your question in the title of this thread, OTA TV isn't really in danger or trouble IMO. First, many of those same OTA stations are also major network affiliates (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc.) and so in addition to advertising dollars, they also receive carriage fees from cable and satellite providers.
The main "problem" some people have with digital OTA TV signals in recent years is that those digital signals generally don't transmit farther than a few miles. Back in the early 1980s before the neighborhood I grew up in got cable, it was simple to put up an aerial antenna on your house and pull in 10 or more OTA TV channels from several miles around. Those, of course, were the days of analog TV transmission. Recently when people in that same area got clobbered with high cable fees and tried to go out and buy antennas for their homes, they were surprised that, post DTV rollout, they can only pull in 1 or maybe 2 DTV channels and their subs.
The main "problem" some people have with digital OTA TV signals in recent years is that those digital signals generally don't transmit farther than a few miles. Back in the early 1980s before the neighborhood I grew up in got cable, it was simple to put up an aerial antenna on your house and pull in 10 or more OTA TV channels from several miles around. Those, of course, were the days of analog TV transmission. Recently when people in that same area got clobbered with high cable fees and tried to go out and buy antennas for their homes, they were surprised that, post DTV rollout, they can only pull in 1 or maybe 2 DTV channels and their subs.
Last edited:
But most people are getting the stations by cable or satellite, so the question becomes why is OTA TV even necessary? Kids don't even know the difference between cable channles and broadcast channels.
This was the post I was replying to:
--
Much of the issue here is the decline of OTA local television as more and more people watch, since about 40 years ago, cable channels and now, since the most recent 10 years or so, streaming video channels.
There is less and less audience for local OTA channels. When we look at "shares" of audience we need to know that a 50 share today is about 30% of the number of people it was 20 years or so ago.
Last edited:
OTA is free, and one does not have to pay anything for it. A lot of OTA is not literal anymore since most TVs that are sold are smart TVs and most people have switched over to digital.
Last edited:
Those "smart TVs" just add additional streaming services. Those channels are not over the air, except between the TV's WiFi and your internet router.
There is no such thing as a "digital antenna." An antenna is an antenna is an antenna. They pick up RF signals, and don't care how those signals are modulated.
That first point was what I just said.
I don't know then. The transition to digital happened years ago. I meant a converter box.
Last edited:
There are many people that still use an antenna to pull in OTA TV stations and their sub-channels. That includes folks who don't watch much TV and the OTA signals they can pull in give them all the content they really want, and also cord-cutters who've moved away from CATV and satellite providers, and instead use a combination of streaming and OTA to get the content they're interested in seeing.
Many that are located in or near larger metropolitan areas often have no problem pulling in a number of OTA DTV channels and their subs (yes, there are lots of factors involved, I know) and there are websites where you can plug in your address and they tell you, roughly, which stations and content you should be able to receive where you live - Again, taking into account the information on those sites may not be completely accurate for everyone and things like antenna type and mounting location, terrain, building construction and the like can all factor in.
I didn't even know before reading these threads that old style antennas were still a thing. Apparently, there are millions who still use them. The news story in 2009 was they were gone and were to be replaced with converters.
I see them all the time but I don't know whether people still use them.
If there are VHF stations, supposedly those will pick them up better.
That makes no sense. It's like saying that cars are gone and being replaced by freeways.
The converter box was used with NTSC (analog) TVs to tune the channels and convert the modulation from ATSC to NTSC. The antenna was (and is) still necessary to pick up the signals out of the air and send them to the converter box or the then-new digital TV.
I just cut the cord. It was more than a little difficult to get an ITA signal since two of my local stations decided to go high VHF rather than have an all UHF system. Had to put up a high band VHF but signal is fine. So not an issue with the standard, although eventually I will have to go ATSC 3.0. Now if there was just something worth watching on OTA 😀
The summary is mostly no: if the USA had used a better standard for broadcast television, broadcast television would still be in sharp decline.
With the rise of streaming services, media companies no longer have much reason to put their best programming on their broadcast networks. I'm thinking about "Mandalorian" from Disney and the latest "Star Trek" reboots from Paramount.
There definitely are people who could not receive the OTA networks if they tried. These are people largely on the fringes of markets, in cities like Flora, Illinois where the nearest OTA transmitters are over 60 miles away. But also people who live closer but have circumstances that prevent them from receiving what should be an OK signal.
However, I think a bigger group are people who have no desire to watch the OTA networks. Maybe they watch a program or two that also airs on broadcast TV, via streaming - but if they can do that, there's no incentive to actually watch OTA.
With the rise of streaming services, media companies no longer have much reason to put their best programming on their broadcast networks. I'm thinking about "Mandalorian" from Disney and the latest "Star Trek" reboots from Paramount.
There definitely are people who could not receive the OTA networks if they tried. These are people largely on the fringes of markets, in cities like Flora, Illinois where the nearest OTA transmitters are over 60 miles away. But also people who live closer but have circumstances that prevent them from receiving what should be an OK signal.
However, I think a bigger group are people who have no desire to watch the OTA networks. Maybe they watch a program or two that also airs on broadcast TV, via streaming - but if they can do that, there's no incentive to actually watch OTA.
I said "old style antennas" not "antennas" as a whole. I also said "I did not know" which meant I admitted my ignorance to the subject. You win. Of all the comments I made, that tiny one at the top of the thread was the last one I ever expected to start a war, but go ahead and dunk on me if that is what you so desire.
There is about 30% of the population that does not stream or use cable. The issue is generally money, although some are restricted by the high cost of satellite and unavailability of wired services.
That percentage is estimated to have increased in the last 18 to 24 months due to inflation affecting lower income people and households.
Many of us don't have contact with farm workers, employees at meat packing facilities, and other unskilled laborers. But among many of those families, a $100 a month cable bill or a high speed internet account that allows streaming are out of reach.
Whether there are 10,000 viewers or 10 viewers, there are always 100 shares.
And if you combine all delivery services, there are move viewers today than there were 20 years ago. There are just more channels, streams and options so nobody has huge shares any more because the pie is divided into so many more thinner slices.
As mentioned in another thread, there is around 30% of all homes that don't have streams or cable. They use OTA TV. They tend to be people with lower incomes, and perhaps few of us have much contact with them... but the percentage is increasing due to inflation.
I just thought they used converter boxes rather than antennas, but apparently I was wrong.
Last edited:
- Status