• 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

TV antennas are making a comeback in the age of digital streaming

https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-tv-antennas-20181228-story.html

Interesting Article though and some of this is cord cutting also in other parts of the article they mention Channel Master, Amazon Fire Recast and Sling as brands people are turning to to cut the cord. Also Internet TV subscriptions are mentioned as contenders to why "traditional cable" is facing competition.

Karl Rudnick, a retired 69-year-old mathematician who lives in Solana Beach, Calif., recently bought a second home outside Minneapolis to be close to family members. He did not have to draw on his knowledge of advanced calculus to reject the idea of paying for two cable TV subscriptions.

“I talked to the cable companies and asked if there was a way to have one account,” Rudnick said. “There wasn’t, and all of a sudden I was looking at spending $300 a month just to have internet and TV.”

After doing some research, Rudnick decided on a throwback solution to bring down his monthly outlay without giving up the TV programming he liked. He purchased two TV antennas for about $80 each. He installed one in the attic of each house, giving him access to ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS and dozens of other broadcast channels for free. At his West Coast home, he was able to connect the antenna to the cable company’s coaxial wires.

The TV antenna is a piece of 20th century technology that evokes memories of rabbit ears placed atop the mahogany cabinet of the old Zenith in your grandparents’ living room. But Rudnick is among a growing number of consumers who are turning to over-the-air digital antennas — a one-time investment of as little as $20 — as a way to slash their monthly video subscription costs.

Research firms and electronics manufacturers say cord-cutting consumers such as Rudnick have driven up TV antenna sales and usage in recent years. These “value-conscious streamers,” as they are known in the industry, are willing to cobble together a mosaic of video sources to replace the traditional pay TV bundle, which now costs an average of $107 a month, according to a recent study by the Leichtman Research Group.
 
An "over the air digital antenna"? So THAT's what's wrong with my setup. I'm still using an analog antenna. :rolleyes:
 
It seems that most of the indoor antennas sold are better suited for UHF reception (channels 14 to 51). Yes, antennas for prior analog reception work for today's digital signals. The frequency range was reduced, but the same ones are still in use...just up to channel 51 instead of 69.

I saw a budget indoor antenna on a Target clearance rack on Christmas Eve. Although it wasn't that "Clear TV" antenna from the God-awful informercial, the pictures on the box for what you'd get or the "how to use" part gave me a chuckle! :)
 
I'm not convinced but if the price of basic basic cable is going to keep going up, it might be worth it. But no one but Spectrum News Channel can be relied on to give me the low and the high when they do the weather. Honestly, why can't TV stations give us this basic information? Yesterday was one of those days when that forecast that is given to us in ninety different ways turned out to be off my ten degrees. But did the broadcast TV stations bother to tell us that? I tried one and all they could do was tell us about the rain and the flooding. No, don't tell me to go online. If I never turn on my computer, it takes a long time just to start up. If I do, that's one of the many things I won't think to do and I don't even know where I'd go to find the information once it's there.

But the woman on "Jeopardy" last night said she could only watch the show when the leaves were off the trees. She never explained why she couldn't get a dish, but it sounds from her description of where she lived like she couldn't get cable.

I'm not prepared to only be able to get a dependable signal when conditions are just right. That and the weather situation. I was in a store where the sound kept going out as lines appeared on the screen. Why they obviously just had an antenna I don't know but their business was light bulbs and equipment for builders. Not what I came in for, at least not any more.
 
If you're using rabbit ears, and you have VHF (2-13) in your area, I recommend you use the ones with 36" rods. those newer 24" ones will work OK with UHF, but don't seem to get VHF too well.
 
There is really no difference between the old "analog" antennas and the new
"digital" antenna. Most manufacturers only changed the packaging/marketing.
Very few manufacturers have re-engineered their antennas for Rf 2-51 let alone
the new Rf 2-36. Most of the crap from China does not work well if at all.
Generally, reception is limited to about 60 miles line of sight. Beyond that distance,
the curvature of the Earth prevents reception. Antennas that assert 100 mile or
more reception should be avoided at all costs.
 
There is really no difference between the old "analog" antennas and the new
"digital" antenna. Most manufacturers only changed the packaging/marketing.
Very few manufacturers have re-engineered their antennas for Rf 2-51 let alone
the new Rf 2-36. Most of the crap from China does not work well if at all.
Generally, reception is limited to about 60 miles line of sight. Beyond that distance,
the curvature of the Earth prevents reception. Antennas that assert 100 mile or
more reception should be avoided at all costs.

You are correct Prescott Joe, and the truth hurts. However, I have heard that the upcomming ATSC3 transmission standard that will be implemented in the next few years will bring an improvement in long distance reception.
 
As the highest channel number is reduced from 83 to 69, to 51, and soon to 36,
and the highest frequency is reduced from 890 to 806, to 698, and soon to 608MHz,
all newly designed UHF-TV antennæ can be designed to perform much betterly over this reduced frequency range
because the necessary antenna bandwidth is reduced from 420 to 336, to 228, and soon to 138MHz.
They only have to cover less than 1/3 as much bandwidth as the original ones did.
In the olden days, it was necessary to find creative ways to broaden the anttenæ (screen reflectors are extremely wide),
but now an antenna tuned for somewhere between 500 and 600MHz will cover all the UHF channels nicely.

BTW...I do not know how many of you are aware of this,
but most VHF antennæ use the longest elements for channels for channels 2, 3, and 4,
but also on their third harmonics which are channels 7-13.
All the elements can be cut for channels 2-6 and maybe the FM band but spaced for channels 7-13.
Break off the smallest elements on many VHF antennæ and you will likely only harm your reception of channels five and six and FM radio.
 
...those newer 24" ones will work OK with UHF, but don't seem to get VHF too well.
They are for high VHF channels 7-13 and maybe UHF but are not made for low VHF channels 2-6 or FM radio.
 
...the woman on "Jeopardy" last night said she could only watch the show when the leaves were off the trees.
She never explained why she couldn't get a dish, but it sounds from her description of where she lived like she couldn't get cable.
To her, I would recommend Free-to-Air satellite TV.
 
You are correct Prescott Joe, and the truth hurts. However, I have heard that the upcomming ATSC3 transmission standard that will be implemented in the next few years will bring an improvement in long distance reception.

Hopefully it'll also fix reception issues where tree leaves block the signal, and it's distorted by planes flying overhead. I'm 25 miles from South Mountain in Phoenix, and have both issues that kill most of the DTV signals at least to some extent.
 
You are correct Prescott Joe, and the truth hurts. However, I have heard that the upcomming ATSC3 transmission standard that will be implemented in the next few years will bring an improvement in long distance reception.

I heard a ton of promises regarding the analog to digital conversion but digital has introduced far more shortcomings than benefits in my not-so-unique situation.

Clearly, digital was great for broadcasters and for urban dwellers who lived near the transmitting signal but not in high rise cement towers. For the rest of us we got a marginal improvement in PQ but only if we paid for new equipment and/or services and put up with digital fallout. The digital subs, for the most part, are trash TV and serve only to host endless hours of commercials interspersed by short episodes of worn out "classics". Great for TV station and gubmint revenue but not so hot for quality content.

Most of my neighbors were so frustrated they simply abandoned OTA for cable and thereby gained effectively nothing but a monthly bill. My internet provider sends both internet connectivity and basic cable TV (a "freebie" add-on) on the same wire. Comparing PQ on the same device shows the cable signal results in a poorer quality picture than the OTA signal (when it is not impacted by a passing aircraft, the sun's position or plain old wind). I am 8 miles from the main transmitter towers line of sight and should have none of these issues but there they were at conversion and remain to this day. I am happy to have my cable provider "give" me free basic cable so that I have a satisfactory backup in the frequent event the digital signals are not adequate. I once lived 30 miles from the towers (analog days) and had none of the issues I have today with digital.

I am one of those "technical" people who understand the Internet and the services it provides and am able to stream and/or download the content my family wants to watch. If ATSC3 introduces the quantity of bugs that has hobbled OTA digital I will just toss my antenna in the trash and go full Internet and to hell with local TV.

I have no idea what ATSC3 might bring however I seriously doubt it will benefit the common customer. I see another analog-to-digital fiasco once again.
 
You are correct Prescott Joe, and the truth hurts. However, I have heard that the upcomming ATSC3 transmission standard that will be implemented in the next few years will bring an improvement in long distance reception.

Someone gave you wrong info. The ERP of the TV stations won't change, nor will the receiver quality. Essentially ATSC 3.0 is designed to cram more bits into the same 6Mhz channel. Among other services, It will allow for reception of 4K UHD video and other data services.
 
Someone gave you wrong info. The ERP of the TV stations won't change, nor will the receiver quality. Essentially ATSC 3.0 is designed to cram more bits into the same 6Mhz channel. Among other services, It will allow for reception of 4K UHD video and other data services.

ATSC 3.0's modulation will handle multipath issues much better than ATSC 1.0's modulation does, so there will be added benefits other than just "cramming more bits". Mobile reception should be possible again, although there is a question as to how effective it will be for VHF stations. However, signal propagation is one area where ATSC 1.0's modulation outperforms ATSC 3.0's, so rather than an improvement in long distance reception, I could see the opposite happening. I wouldn't be surprised to see the FCC changing power limits and stations applying for power increases once ATSC 3.0 is fully implemented.
 
Solid mobile reception needs time diversity so that a moving vehicle can benefit from spacial diversity. This means using bandwidth for redundancy. A fixed location receiver with a solid signal does NOT need it. In other words, sending video to the former must, has to, needs to gobble up more data than sending the same to the later.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom