Do the sports crazy markets have the lowest?
-
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
What markets have the highest amount of cord cutters?
- Thread starter nomadcowatbk
- Start date
There is a list out there somewhere, but I believe Hartford-New Haven, CT has among the least amount of cord cutters. This doesn't surprise me because the TV stations in CT broadcast from several different locations throughout the state, which makes watching via OTA a nightmare.
3 (CBS), 24 (PBS) - Hartford (Avon)
20 (CW), 30 (NBC), 61 (FOX) - Hartford (Farmington)
8 (ABC), 59 (MY) - New Haven (Bethany)
26 (ION) - New London
When I lived in Farmington I couldn't pull in even the slightest signal from the 2 New Haven stations.
I believe NYC also has among the lowest cord cutting due to the difficulty in pulling in OTA reception in the many high-rise apartment buildings.
3 (CBS), 24 (PBS) - Hartford (Avon)
20 (CW), 30 (NBC), 61 (FOX) - Hartford (Farmington)
8 (ABC), 59 (MY) - New Haven (Bethany)
26 (ION) - New London
When I lived in Farmington I couldn't pull in even the slightest signal from the 2 New Haven stations.
I believe NYC also has among the lowest cord cutting due to the difficulty in pulling in OTA reception in the many high-rise apartment buildings.
Answer: Austin, Texas. 10% of homes there are not considered "TVV homes" because they dont have a TV hooked up to either cable/sat or an antenna.
I want to cut away from Comcast soooooooo bad here in New Britain, CT. I have limited basic service and use no converter. My monthly bill comes to $25.99. Like ANSKY212 said, I only have that due to s----y reception of the locals. I can not receive WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven (due to them using VHF channel 10 for their digital). Their sister station, WCTX-TV (MY) channel 59 is spotty at times. WHPX-TV (ION) channel 26 of New London is a bit further than they are and yet is more reliable. The four stations on Rattlesnake Mountain of Farmington (CW, PBS, NBC and FOX) are rock solid.
P.S. I believe the WTNH/WCTX site is actually Madmere Mountain in Hamden. That's what they used to say in the sign off, back in the analog days> Analog channel 8 was often better for me than CBS 3 was, due to a signal reflection (or block?) from Avon Mountain here.
P.S. I believe the WTNH/WCTX site is actually Madmere Mountain in Hamden. That's what they used to say in the sign off, back in the analog days> Analog channel 8 was often better for me than CBS 3 was, due to a signal reflection (or block?) from Avon Mountain here.
Seattle is pretty hilly, and I suspect most of its super-liberal young types live in apartments or dorms, so there might be less cord-cutting, at least of the antenna variety, here than you might think.Eric Stein said:
Eric Stein said:
but how are they supposed to get the Longhon Network?
I think some posters are missing the point of the "trendy 20-somethings and 30-somethings" being cord cutters or "cord nevers." It's not about whether they're able to pull in various stations' signals with antennas, or that the hills of Seattle or the skyscrapers of Chicago might stop them. It's that they don't care about conventional TV.
They either watch on their laptops and tablets. Or they have their TVs hooked up to their computers. They're watching "Big Bang Theory" and "Arrow" from the CBS and WB websites. They watch movies from Netflix and get their news from Rachel Maddow and John Stewart on the MSNBC and Comedy Central websites. I guess they don't really care much about the local news in Indianapolis or San Jose. But if they do, they'll also get the clips of the stories they're interested in from local TV stations' websites.
If they want to watch when Paris Hilton goes on Letterman, they can see that segment, and only that segment, on You Tube. CBS apparently puts it on You Tube themselves. Cable cutters don't have to be in front of their TVs at 12:05am when Letterman does the interview. The clip will be on You Tube within hours. And the entire show will be on CBS.com the next day.
It's actually scary because you wonder if TV stations will die within our lifetimes. I always thought video stores would survive because people who don't know what movie they want to see will go to Blockbuster and look at the boxes the movies come in. If they see the face of an actor they like or a scene on the box catches their attention, they'll rent that video. Not everyone who watches movies knows ahead of time what they're looking for and can ask Netflix for it. But I was wrong.
If video stores are all but dead, are there still enough people that don't want to do the work, even the simple work, needed to go to websites to search for the TV shows and clips they want to see? Will they continue to sit down in front of the TV, remote in hand, and just channel surf till they find something they want to watch? Will enough of the population say, it's Thursday night at 8:30pm. Time for "Parks and Recreation"? It's 11pm. Time for news? Or will this eventually die, replaced by all on-demand programming?
They either watch on their laptops and tablets. Or they have their TVs hooked up to their computers. They're watching "Big Bang Theory" and "Arrow" from the CBS and WB websites. They watch movies from Netflix and get their news from Rachel Maddow and John Stewart on the MSNBC and Comedy Central websites. I guess they don't really care much about the local news in Indianapolis or San Jose. But if they do, they'll also get the clips of the stories they're interested in from local TV stations' websites.
If they want to watch when Paris Hilton goes on Letterman, they can see that segment, and only that segment, on You Tube. CBS apparently puts it on You Tube themselves. Cable cutters don't have to be in front of their TVs at 12:05am when Letterman does the interview. The clip will be on You Tube within hours. And the entire show will be on CBS.com the next day.
It's actually scary because you wonder if TV stations will die within our lifetimes. I always thought video stores would survive because people who don't know what movie they want to see will go to Blockbuster and look at the boxes the movies come in. If they see the face of an actor they like or a scene on the box catches their attention, they'll rent that video. Not everyone who watches movies knows ahead of time what they're looking for and can ask Netflix for it. But I was wrong.
If video stores are all but dead, are there still enough people that don't want to do the work, even the simple work, needed to go to websites to search for the TV shows and clips they want to see? Will they continue to sit down in front of the TV, remote in hand, and just channel surf till they find something they want to watch? Will enough of the population say, it's Thursday night at 8:30pm. Time for "Parks and Recreation"? It's 11pm. Time for news? Or will this eventually die, replaced by all on-demand programming?
Gregg said:
It's not just the 20 and 30-somethings. I'm a 60-something and have been doing what you describe for over a decade now. It wasn't always as easy as it is today of course and that means more people are jumping on the bandwagon now.
Gregg said:
No, you weren't wrong. The Internet gave people the ability to read reviews and browse through movie inventory from their homes so one didn't need to make a trip to the store to see what was available. Downloading meant you could get a movie in a few minutes, again without going to the store. And the video "store" was now online so didn't have the cost and overhead of stocking physical copies of the movie. Just more efficient and a classic case of technology improving a business scenario.
Gregg said:
You're spot on. These people aren't going to pay for a DirecTV or Dish subscription in order to receive "Democracy Now!" when they can get it on demand online or through a Roku box. Even PBS is forward-thinking on this part, creating a Roku app with all their current programs. No doubt they're targeting the "cord-cutters" of Generations X and Y.
- Status