Question for those Without Cable TV...

[Frontier]

So I'm curious. For those who do not have cable tv, or satelite, whatever else. For those using broadcast only. Who used rabbit ears and such last month. What is your signal like now? Has it improved dramatically? No change? Do you still have to fiddle with antennae?

I ask because, if the broadcast channels post digital transition now look really good sans cable/satellite, I might go buy myself a few new tiny tvs for around the house where I don't have cable hook-ups.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Do they still broadcast in your country? Why?

 

[Frontier]

Do they still broadcast in your country? Why?

Damned if I know, but yes, they still broadcast over the air, free TV.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

So I'm curious. For those who do not have cable tv, or satelite, whatever else. For those using broadcast only. Who used rabbit ears and such last month. What is your signal like now? Has it improved dramatically? No change? Do you still have to fiddle with antennae?

I ask because, if the broadcast channels post digital transition now look really good sans cable/satellite, I might go buy myself a few new tiny tvs for around the house where I don't have cable hook-ups.

While I do have DirecTV, I also have a 13" digital HD tv in ny kitchen that only receives signal off of the regular antenna. The picture is excelent and I probably get 20 channels or so. Also, I receive alternate programming from my local channels that you can't get thru cable or on a dish. It's pretty sweet and I'd recommend it.

 

[Vulcan Princess]

The channels that come in well are better now that they're digital. The channels that come in poorly are completely unwatchable in digital. A poor analog signal will be fuzzy and snowy, but still ok. A poor digital signal has no sound, and the pixels stall and jerk around the screen.

I get about 10 channels in varying degrees of quality.

 

[JonathonWally]

Do they still broadcast in your country? Why?

So people can have TV without having to pay for cable or satelite. That really a difficult concept for you?

 

[Plecostomus]

Do they still broadcast in your country? Why?

So people can have TV without having to pay for cable or satelite. That really a difficult concept for you?

Because not everyone is a slave to the talking pre-digested-opinion distributor. Some of us only watch one or two shows then turn it off.

In fact it's safe to say that we're both online more than we watch TV now, just not worth paying for a TV signal.

Best part about the internet is while it does brainwash you, you can brainwash it right back. Can't do that with TV.

 

[RoJoHen]

Do they still broadcast in your country? Why?

So people can have TV without having to pay for cable or satelite. That really a difficult concept for you?

Because not everyone is a slave to the talking pre-digested-opinion distributor. Some of us only watch one or two shows then turn it off.

In fact it's safe to say that we're both online more than we watch TV now, just not worth paying for a TV signal.

Best part about the internet is while it does brainwash you, you can brainwash it right back. Can't do that with TV.

In my neck of the woods, it's a lot cheaper to just get your internet through your cable, so it would be silly of me to not pay for TV.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

So people can have TV without having to pay for cable or satelite. That really a difficult concept for you?

There seems to be a common misconception that you actually need to have a TV with a subscription in order to watch television programs. Aerial broadcast is outdated; most programs can be watched online, for free.

I don't have a cable subscription -- everything that I'd like to see, I see on the internet. Though not up to the level of BBC, our national channels do have almost every program online from the moment it's on the air. And most commercial programs can be watched online too, but you might have to wait a few hours, that's true enough. Just put your TV as a second monitor and presto, you're set. No extra subscription fees necessary.

 

[JonathonWally]

Do they still broadcast in your country? Why?

So people can have TV without having to pay for cable or satelite. That really a difficult concept for you?

So people can have TV without having to pay for cable or satelite. That really a difficult concept for you?

Some of us only watch one or two shows then turn it off.

In fact it's safe to say that we're both online more than we watch TV now, just not worth paying for a TV signal.

There seems to be a common misconception that you'll actually have to have a TV with a subscription in order to watch television programs. Aerial broadcast is outdated; most programs can be watched online, for free.

I don't have a cable subscription -- everything that I'd like to see, I see on the internet. Though not up to the level of BBC, our national channels do have almost every program online from the moment it's on the air. And most commercial programs can be watched online too, but you might have to wait a few hours, that's true enough.

You gotta pay for the internet though, and you have to pay for high enough bandwidth to be able to stream a TV show. Over-the-broadcasts are free.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

You gotta pay for the internet though, and you have to pay for high enough bandwidth to be able to stream a TV show. Over-the-broadcasts are free.

Of course, but these days, an internet subscription is as normal as a tv subscription was a few decades ago; almost everyone has it. Certainly an internet subscription is much more useful then a tv subscription. And the bandwidth to stream programs has been, in the western world at least, common place for the last 7-10 years, depending on if you live in a rural area or not. My internet connection is still the same 15Mbps it was 10 years ago. It's getting a bit slow, but it's still enough to stream television programs.

Of course, there is a case for those people who live so remote that they don't have any sort of internet connection available to them -- but then, those few channels you could theoretically receive for free isn't much anyway, is it?

 

[RoJoHen]

So people can have TV without having to pay for cable or satelite. That really a difficult concept for you?

Some of us only watch one or two shows then turn it off.

In fact it's safe to say that we're both online more than we watch TV now, just not worth paying for a TV signal.

There seems to be a common misconception that you'll actually have to have a TV with a subscription in order to watch television programs. Aerial broadcast is outdated; most programs can be watched online, for free.

I don't have a cable subscription -- everything that I'd like to see, I see on the internet. Though not up to the level of BBC, our national channels do have almost every program online from the moment it's on the air. And most commercial programs can be watched online too, but you might have to wait a few hours, that's true enough.

You gotta pay for the internet though, and you have to pay for high enough bandwidth to be able to stream a TV show. Over-the-broadcasts are free.

True. It's been my experience that people who can't afford cable also can't afford the internet (or they are still using dial-up).

 

[JonathonWally]

You gotta pay for the internet though, and you have to pay for high enough bandwidth to be able to stream a TV show. Over-the-broadcasts are free.

Of course, but these days, an internet subscription is as normal as a tv subscription was a few decades ago; almost everyone has it, and the bandwidth to stream programs has been, in the western world at least, common place for the last 7-10 years, depending on if you live in a rural area or not.

You still have to pay for it, over the air is free

 

[RoJoHen]

You gotta pay for the internet though, and you have to pay for high enough bandwidth to be able to stream a TV show. Over-the-broadcasts are free.

Of course, but these days, an internet subscription is as normal as a tv subscription was a few decades ago; almost everyone has it, and the bandwidth to stream programs has been, in the western world at least, common place for the last 7-10 years, depending on if you live in a rural area or not.

I think a lot of people (pretty much everybody in my area at least) bundle their cable and internet. I don't know a single person who ONLY has the internet. It tends to be more expensive to do that, especially if you want a high speed connection.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I think a lot of people (pretty much everybody in my area at least) bundle their cable and internet. I don't know a single person who ONLY has the internet. It tends to be more expensive to do that, especially if you want a high speed connection.

Depends on the content provider, for me, a singular internet connection is cheaper then a combo package.

You still have to pay for it, over the air is free

As I said before; any television channels you could theoretically receive, over the air, for free, are not much to speak of. Over here, when they still broadcasted analog signals, you could only get the three national channels. And since nearly everybody has internet anyway, they shut it down. You can still recieve these channels for free over the air, but you'll need to buy a digital decoder -- so not exactly free then, is it?

 

[RoJoHen]

You can still recieve these channels for free over the air, but you'll need to buy a digital decoder -- so not exactly free then, is it?

I'm pretty sure it's like $40, and there were government coupons provided to some people to make it even less. These people are still able to receive a fair amount of channels.

 

[JonathonWally]

I think a lot of people (pretty much everybody in my area at least) bundle their cable and internet. I don't know a single person who ONLY has the internet. It tends to be more expensive to do that, especially if you want a high speed connection.

Depends on the content provider, for me, a singular internet connection is cheaper then a combo package.

You still have to pay for it, over the air is free

As I said before; any television channels you could theoretically receive, over the air, for free, are not much to speak of. Over here, when they still broadcasted analog signals, you could only get the three national channels. And since nearly everybody has internet anyway, they shut it down. You can still recieve these channels for free over the air, but you'll need to buy a digital decoder -- so not exactly free then, is it?

If you really want to play semantics, you have to pay for the Television too, as well as a computer.

And yes, there are still plenty of places in the US where high speed internet isn't available.

Are you really this dense?

 

[RoJoHen]

I often just think people from smaller countries don't realize just how frickin big and diverse the US can be sometimes. Hell, only about 10 out of my 50 or so co-workers even own computers!

 

[Plecostomus]

I often just think people from smaller countries don't realize just how frickin big and diverse the US can be sometimes. Hell, only about 10 out of my 50 or so co-workers even own computers!

Any initiative to bring "free access" across the nation can and will fail due to the shear geographical diversity and the engineering challenges that would entail.

In other words: Cost.

The USA isn't a cozy little country 100 miles by 100 miles across with a specific geographical component: we are HUGE and have hundreds if not thousands of unique geographical situations to address.

Plus... like me some people just don't WATCH TV enough to justify the cost.

 

[RoJoHen]

The USA isn't a cozy little country 100 miles by 100 miles across with a specific geographical component: we are HUGE and have hundreds if not thousands of unique geographical situations to address.

I absolutely agree.

Plus... like me some people just don't WATCH TV enough to justify the cost.

And people like me hate watching TV shows on their computer.