Is OTA TV in trouble because of the standard for U.S. digital TV?

[KeithE4]

I just thought they used converter boxes rather than antennas, but apparently I was wrong. I should probably repeat that several times (I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong), so that someone doesn't pick a flame war with me.

Nobody, including me, is trying to pick a fight. I apologize if I came across that way. We're just trying to explain to you how things work.

Now, as far as antennas go, the main requirement is that it be cut for at least VHF-Hi (RF 7-13) and UHF (RF 14-36). VHF-Lo (RF 2-6) isn't needed in most metro areas right now (Philadelphia being one notable exception), but that will change in the future, especially once ATSC 3.0 goes mainstream. So make sure the antenna is cut for all three bands and it's in good shape, including good quality RG-6 coax from the antenna to the TV or converter box. If it is, you're good to go whether you bought it last week or it's been on your roof for 50 years or more.

 

[fybush]

May I take a stab at this by way of an explainer, not an attack? (Because I'm an explainer, not an attacker...)

There are always two pieces to any OTA reception system. There has to be an antenna of sRF ome sort to pull in the RF signal out of the air, and a receiver that takes that RF signal and extracts the video and audio information so it can be sent to a display or a recorder.

The antenna is basically a dumb piece of metal. It doesn't know or care what kind of signal is modulated on the RF. All it's designed to do is to receive a certain range of frequencies (VHF, UHF or both) and in some cases to be directional so it only picks up signals from a specific direction and not from others. Some antenna systems include amplification to boost weak signals.

That's all antennas do. Everything else is just marketing, whether it was the "color antennas" that were being sold in the 1960s or the "digital antennas" of the 2000s.

As for the converter boxes, that's just another form of receiver. We never thought about receivers before the DTV transition, because any TV you bought had the NTSC (analog) receiver built right into it - you connected the antenna to the TV and the internal receiver transformed the RF signal into analog video and audio that it displayed on the picture tube and played through the speaker. Those 2000s-era converter boxes took the new ATSC 1.0 digital signal from the antenna and literally converted it - either into an analog NTSC RF signal that then went into the antenna input of the analog TV, or into a "baseband" audio and video signal that went into the line inputs of the TV.

The point here is this: the converter box (a receiver) still needed an antenna, and so does any newer TV (at this point anything made from 2007-ish onward) that has a built-in ATSC 1.0 DTV receiver. Which gets us back to the original thread that started all this: what kind of antenna you need for reliable ATSC 1.0 reception varies wildly, depending on where you're located, where your local broadcasters are located, whether they're on VHF or UHF. And as I indicated in that thread, there are some markets where the signals are not good enough for any kind of reception, even with an "old-fashioned" outdoor antenna... and others where the signals might work with an outdoor antenna but aren't good enough for an indoor antenna, which doesn't help people who might live in an apartment building or condo where they can't put up an outdoor antenna.

Does any of that help?

 

[tall_guy1]

Nobody, including me, is trying to pick a fight. I apologize if I came across that way. We're just trying to explain to you how things work.

Now, as far as antennas go, the main requirement is that it be cut for at least VHF-Hi (RF 7-13) and UHF (RF 14-36). VHF-Lo (RF 2-6) isn't needed in most metro areas right now (Philadelphia being one notable exception), but that will change in the future, especially once ATSC 3.0 goes mainstream. So make sure the antenna is cut for all three bands and it's in good shape, including good quality RG-6 coax from the antenna to the TV or converter box. If it is, you're good to go whether you bought it last week or it's been on your roof for 50 years or more.

That is good. Did not even mean to get this far into this thread as I really know nothing about the subject and just tried to make a quick little remark to vchimp. Usually I get those kinds of responses when I talk playlists and so-forth (though I am trying to move away from that type of conversation from here on out.)

 

[Markxxx]

I think the danger is in people finding alternatives. I used to get crystal clear reception on analog, as I live in Chicago about 2.5 miles from Willis Tower. I could even get low power analog perfect. I lost all TV when it went digital.

I thought I would go nuts without TV but it hasn't bothered me at all. I don't watch TV per say and haven't watched a new show in over ten years. This is the issue, with a better standard, I'd still be watching TV.

Same thing for radio. I found an app "Radio Sure" and was listening to WBBM as it's hard to get downtown where I work but crystal clear via the Internet. My coworker, a 22 year girl in college whose parents came from Poland, asked about it. I told. A week later she's listening to Polish stations and liking Polish bands. Again, the American radio lost audience to someone who previously would have been captive.

I remember in the days of Usenet (Before it was, what it is now, used for file sharing) on BA. Broadcast, there was a guy who kept saying how the ATSC standard would be the downfall and listing all the deficiencies of the current 1.0 system. He was mocked and told to shut up, but he turned out to be right.

Now there have always been markets like San Diego or SW Florida which needed high cable penetration and they did not write off their audience, the way it has happened, in Chicago, which due to it's dense buildings is horrible for the current ASTC 1.0 standard. I talk to people with complaint after complaint after complaint. They will just move to the Internet and stream or find other "alternative" methods to view content.

 

[radiofan2023]

I think the danger is in people finding alternatives. I used to get crystal clear reception on analog, as I live in Chicago about 2.5 miles from Willis Tower. I could even get low power analog perfect. I lost all TV when it went digital.

Why didn’t you get a digital to analog converter box for your TV? You can probably get one on ebay for $20-40.

 

[KeithE4]

Why didn’t you get a digital to analog converter box for your TV? You can probably get one on ebay for $20-40.

There wouldn't be any difference. He's still dealing with multipath messing up digital signals.

The problem is that the signals are bouncing back and forth between the buildings, as well as being received directly from the towers downtown. It's similar to what happens in Manhattan. In the analog era, there would be ghosts. With ATSC 1.0, the poor error correction causes the imperfect signals to go away.

I don't know if Chicago has ATSC 3.0 yet, but it sounds like your location would be a good test for it. It's supposed to fix this issue.

 

[fybush]

It could be multipath, but there are other potential issues, too. Analog NTSC TV worked at very high signal levels - you really couldn't overload an NTSC receiver. But ATSC 1.0 receivers can and do overload at very high signal levels, especially when there's an amplified antenna as part of the mix. Sometimes less signal is more in those cases - even trying a bent paper clip as an antenna has been known to work!

And yes, the canyons of Chicago skyscrapers will be a good test for ATSC 3.0 eventually.

 

[kevtronics]

The FCC repack certainly didn't help, especially since it forced many stations back onto VHF-Low, which not only suffers the worst from atmospheric effects causing reception problems, but many cheap indoor DTV antennas don't cover that frequency range at all.

 

[KeithE4]

The FCC repack certainly didn't help, especially since it forced many stations back onto VHF-Low, which not only suffers the worst from atmospheric effects causing reception problems, but many cheap indoor DTV antennas don't cover that frequency range at all.

Hmmmm..... I wonder if the old trick of putting a foil "flag" on the end of each rabbit ear element would work with digital?

 

[vchimpanzee]

It could be multipath, but there are other potential issues, too. Analog NTSC TV worked at very high signal levels - you really couldn't overload an NTSC receiver. But ATSC 1.0 receivers can and do overload at very high signal levels, especially when there's an amplified antenna as part of the mix. Sometimes less signal is more in those cases - even trying a bent paper clip as an antenna has been known to work!

And yes, the canyons of Chicago skyscrapers will be a good test for ATSC 3.0 eventually.

Kelly A mentioned the paper clip solution for multipath. How would that work?

The last thing asked on the locked thread (though I didn't phrase it in the form of a question) was whether, if airplanes cause multipath, is there a solution to passing cars?

 

[JeeperOne]

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.

WRONG !!

Have you EVER seen a Roku TV in action?? It HAS an option for Live TV which not only picks up channels from The Roku Channel but ALSO OTA TV

BEFORE tou spew forth MYTHOLOGICAL CRAP like that, you might ACTUALLY TRY...

1). BUYING a Smart TV
2). CONNECTING the Smart TV to an antenna
3). USE the Smart TV's LIVE TV option to scan for TV channels

You'd be SHOCKED at what you can find

 

[KeithE4]

WRONG !!

Have you EVER seen a Roku TV in action?? It HAS an option for Live TV which not only picks up channels from The Roku Channel but ALSO OTA TV

BEFORE tou spew forth MYTHOLOGICAL CRAP like that, you might ACTUALLY TRY...

1). BUYING a Smart TV
2). CONNECTING the Smart TV to an antenna
3). USE the Smart TV's LIVE TV option to scan for TV channels

You'd be SHOCKED at what you can find

LIGHTEN UP, FRANCIS!!!! We're not in disagreement here.

I own several Samsung smart TVs and one Roku TV, and have for several years. I know exactly how they work. The only difference between a Roku TV and a regular TV is the Roku visual interface is used for everything. Both get the OTA signals from an antenna, and the other programming via the internet. In other words, streaming.

 

[TexasTom]

It's definitely not the digital TV standard that is causing the decline. In fact, if you look at the percentage of TV households that receive and view OTA TV signals, that percentage has actually gone up since the analog TV shutdown.

Despite that, OTA TV is hurting -- albeit not as badly as cable and satellite TV, since both of those forms of TV delivery have seen sizeable declines in the number of subscribers. As people have dumped cable and satellite TV subscriptions, streaming TV services have picked up most of those former subscribers, but some of them have also installed antennas to watch OTA broadcasts. It is those streaming services that have really hurt OTA, cable, and satellite, which are jointly described as "linear TV" services. As streaming audiences have grown, the audience shares for all linear TV services (including OTA) have dropped.

Another factor hurting OTA TV is that the broadcast networks and their affiliates have gotten increasingly dependent on "retransmission consent" fees from cable and satellite operators in recent years -- and as the number of cable and satellite subscribers drops that source of revenue is going to slowly dry up.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

It's definitely not the digital TV standard that is causing the decline. In fact, if you look at the percentage of TV households that receive and view OTA TV signals, that percentage has actually gone up since the analog TV shutdown.

Where did you find this data? I've looked for some time and didn't find anything recent.

 

[spunker88]

Most people don't care about the standard being used as long as it works. I'm sure there are people out there who have given up on OTA TV because they can't get good reception and part of the issue is how bad ATSC 1.0 is at dealing with multipath and weaker signals. That being said I feel like there are more people watching TV over the air now then there were in 2009. A lot of people have ditched cable due to rising costs and now use an antenna along with streaming services.

 

[TexasTom]

Where did you find this data? I've looked for some time and didn't find anything recent.

TVB has this information. They have percentages for ADS (this includes satellite TV services), cable, and broadcast only. The broadcast only numbers only go back to 2012, but if you look at the ADS and cable numbers from 2009 to 2012 you can see that broadcast numbers could only have changed by a few tenths of a percent during that time, since the combined ADS and cable numbers changed by very little during that time.

That said, broadcast only numbers have started dropping again as an increasing number of households simply don't bother with any sort of linear TV service -- no cable, no satellite, and they either don't bother to connect an antenna to their TV or they watch streaming services without the use of a conventional television set.

So if you look at the "broadcast only" column, you'll see it was at 9.6% in February of 2012, peaked at 17.1% in May of 2021, and is now down to 14.5% (which is still higher than it was at the digital transition).

Note that the declines for cable TV and ADS are much, much higher than for broadcast.

 

[Loverofradio]

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.

Also, I’m sure as you already know, many rural areas of the country don’t have access to high speed internet, and probably never will. In my former market, 60 percent of our DMA relied on Dish/Directv as well as antenna. I don’t see OTA tv going away. It’s being reinvented: live sports, more live newscasts. I admire what Fox is doing by not necessarily going all in on streaming. But, waiting to see how the dust settles among other networks and their streaming platforms

 

[inari]

TVB has this information. They have percentages for ADS (this includes satellite TV services), cable, and broadcast only. The broadcast only numbers only go back to 2012, but if you look at the ADS and cable numbers from 2009 to 2012 you can see that broadcast numbers could only have changed by a few tenths of a percent during that time, since the combined ADS and cable numbers changed by very little during that time.

Useful link thanks. For May 2023, when the ADS, Cable, and OTA are added up they total 62.2%. So 37.8% are not using any of those. That's a pretty big number.

I know quite a few people in the LPTV business and they celebrate people cancelling their cable and satellite TV services. The problem is most of those people are not hooking up an antenna they're subscribing to Hulu, Netflix, HBO Max, etc.. I'd bet most of the people that do cancel cable and satellite TV service and hook up an antenna skew older.

 

[Prescott Joe]

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.

Flora, IL has 4 transmitters well less than 60 miles away. Major network stations from Terre Haute, IN
are 71 miles away and are quite receivable. WTWO and WTHI should provide plenty of basic viewing
options. Additionally, there are stations from Evansville, IN which are also within reach. The real issue here
is that far too many people expect to place an antenna on a roof with stellar results. It doesn't happen that
way. There is nothing wrong with the past and current television broadcast standards. Careful consideration
as to the antenna, placement, aiming, environment are key to quality, long range reception.

 

[Kelly A]

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.

Back in 2007, or two years before the mandatory analog-to-DTV transition, the Commission was giving out $50 DTV converter box coupons to those who weren't able, or willing to buy a new TV. These boxes had a composite video out with analog L/R audio, plus a little modulator to plug into an older analog TV. Who knows whether there are still the converter boxes in use today, but one must remember, that was sixteen years ago. Many of the elderly or folks who couldn't afford to buy a TV with an ATSC 1.0 tuner are likely in a different place by now.