Who uses TV antennas anymore?

[grinnell]

I have had cable once or twice in the last 30 years. What a ripoff. Basic cable here is around $40/month. That's a lot of beer

I just got setup with DTV (converter box/new antenna) get all the channels i did before but w/o snow and get a few more mostly spanish and network extra channels

this is all i need why should a pay for TV? I am pissed off enough about having to buy a box and antenna. Almost went with a new hdtv but my 27inch sharp works fine and should last another 8 years.

The FCC is a crock.

[Jeffhs]

I would have gotten a converter box and an antenna long ago (before the government ran out of money and stopped the coupon program) if I were not living in an apartment building 45 miles from the nearest TV stations. I cannot put up any kind of outside TV antenna because of lease restrictions. I pay $50+ a month for expanded basic cable, but could probably get bare-bones basic service (only local channels) for a fraction of that. Since I do not have a flat-panel TV and do not intend to get one any time soon (I still have my 19" RCA XL-100, which still works extremely well for having nine years on it) I have no need or desire for high-definition cable service. Shucks, I won't even notice the difference when every North American TV station goes digital on June 12. One station about 60 miles south of here has already shut off its analog signal and is now 100 percent digital; makes no difference to me. I can still get the station on cable just as well as I always have. The only problem is there's nothing to watch on that station--it's 24 hour infomercials and home shopping.

[wa2ise]

Originally Posted by grinnell

The FCC is a crock.

They don't call it the "Funny Cookie Corporation" for nothin'...

My mom has never had cable, $50 a month is too much. We do have a rooftop antenna, and we have line-of-sight of NYC's Empire State Building, where most of the TV signals around here comes from. And digitally, WLIW ch 21 comes in much better than their analog signal does. We might get cable so I can have cable internet service, and TV would be a secondary feature.

[Sam Cogley]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

Please reread my post, as I'm sure you missed something. I stated there that I do not have a television antenna (cannot erect an outside one because I live in an apartment); rabbit ears don't work well here at all. (OTA digital would probably be even worse.)

You might be surprised. Analog reception on all channels at my house was terrible. OTA digital is crystal-clear, and I'm as far, if not further, from my local antenna farm as you are.

[radotvguy]

I have had cable for 2 years . Its ok and all but its expensive . I never would have got it but i have a elderly grandparent who is home all day and wanted some more tv entertainment . For years i was fine with just my rooftop antenna . The cable bill seem to go up every couple of months . Wouldnt be surprised if they really jack up the prices come June .

[electroking]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

... Shucks, I won't even notice the difference when every North American TV station goes digital on June 12. ...

Hi,

The last time I checked, Canada and Mexico were still part of North
America, and using the NTSC analog television system. No harm intended!

[garage sound]

Someone mentioned that the lowest cable fee is $50. That's what the cable companies want you to believe. We have ultra-basic cable and it costs us around $10/month. Only get local channels mostly. The cable companies do not "advertise" this fee (meaning they don't print it in the list of options or metion it in any of their literature!) You have to ask for it. I believe they are required by law to offer it. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt my cable company would offer it (and hide the option) if it weren't required.

[radiotvnut]

About the only thing they are pushing around here is the higher priced digital cable packages. When I subscribed to cable and told them I wanted the regular analog service, they tried to talk me out of it, saying it would be phased out in a few months. That was 12/07. This is 3/09 and I still have my analog channels. I think it would wind up costing the cable company if they dumped analog cable because many people would dump cable if they had to pay high rental fees on multiple digital cable boxes for their TV's.

[illinoisteve]

Around where I am a lot of people have had to upgrade antennas for DTV. They might have lived with their analog signal being snowy in bad weather or when the leaves are on the trees between their house and the broadcast tower. But if the DTV signal is that weak, you get zip or maybe a few intermittent patches of pixels. If I point my antenna directly toward the towers (ENE) I don't get as good of a signal as if I point it due East. Who knows what sorts of reflections create that effect. What some website says you are going to get isn't as real as what you actually get. But I'm not complaining, as I mentioned earlier, all the digital signals are better since all the stations cut their analog broadcasts around here.

[Fred Sanford]

Originally Posted by garage sound

Someone mentioned that the lowest cable fee is $50. That's what the cable companies want you to believe. We have ultra-basic cable and it costs us around $10/month. Only get local channels mostly. The cable companies do not "advertise" this fee (meaning they don't print it in the list of options or metion it in any of their literature!) You have to ask for it. I believe they are required by law to offer it. I could be wrong about that, but I doubt my cable company would offer it (and hide the option) if it weren't required.

Same here. There's another ~$14/month package they'll avoid discussing absolutely as much as possible, even denying it exists until you tell them that another family member in the area has it...they try to hit you for big $$ in "hookup" fees, though, so have the house pre-wired before they get there.

je

[radiotvnut]

Originally Posted by Fred Sanford

Same here. There's another ~$14/month package they'll avoid discussing absolutely as much as possible, even denying it exists until you tell them that another family member in the area has it...they try to hit you for big $$ in "hookup" fees, though, so have the house pre-wired before they get there.

je

My house was already prewired. All they had to do was connect the cable at the street and my computer modem. He spent about 3 minutes setting up my computer. IIRC, they hit me up for $125. It would have been much more if they had to run cable outlets for all the TV's.

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by electroking

Hi,

The last time I checked, Canada and Mexico were still part of North
America, and using the NTSC analog television system. No harm intended!

Ooops! My bad. I should have said I won't notice the difference when all United States television stations switch to digital on 06.12. Don't know what I was thinking of.

Canada is indeed still using the NTSC television broadcast standard, and will until at least 2012--three years after our DTV conversion here in the US. Don't know about Mexico. I think, however, their stations may continue with NTSC analog for the time being. I'm not even sure Mexico has a digital transition plan in the works.

[old_tv_nut]

Mexican stations are likely to take it upon themselves, and let the Mexican government catch up with them. Stations near the U.S. border will probably make a decision based on whether analog or digital serves their audience better. At the same time, the larger Mexican broadcasting organizations are in general interested in going digital and may have "experimental" stations on the air simulcasting their analog content on a long-term basis.

[stereodctr]

I use an antenna for both tv's. We don't watch much tv in our house and I can't see paying the prices they want for cable or satellite.

[peverett]

At one time their was a push in the US congress to allow US stations within 90 miles of the Mexican border to continue broadcasting NTSC analog until 2012. It passed the US senate, but I am not sure if it went any where after that.