Who uses TV antennas anymore?

[Jeffhs]

I think the government is worrying over nothing as far as people losing TV reception after the DTV transition is concerned; sheeesh, they have more important things to worry about at this time anyhow. Who uses regular television antennas these days, anyway? Most people have either cable or satellite now, and let's face it, some folks live in areas where cable is not available. Case in point: I live in an area of northeastern Ohio, 33 miles east of Cleveland and 610 feet above sea level, where the TV reception with an antenna is terrible. One station (the NBC affiliate) doesn't reach here at all; seven others (three of which are UHF stations) are fair to poor at best. The only station that comes in here on an antenna with a picture good enough to watch is channel 19. From this, it is or should be clear that in this area, as well as in many other towns across the country, antennas do not work very well, so cable is really the only way people around here (and in other small towns) can get decent reception from local channels. For people who cannot afford expanded basic cable (as Time Warner refers to it) or digital, most cable operators, I'm sure, offer a basic level of service that offers only local channels, which costs much less than the other services; I think TW's basic cable is only something in the neighborhood of $12 a month or so, after the initial installation charge. I know someone with TW basic cable who pays only about $5 a month for the service (why this person's rate is so low, I don't know ), so cable service just to get an area's local TV channels shouldn't be a strain on anyone's budget.

Cable and satellite are a large part of the future of TV in the 21st century; antennas are rapidly becoming obsolete. Most homes in this small town in which I live do not have rooftop antennas anymore, with a few having Dish Network satellite service and most having TW cable. There are only two places in this village (that I am aware of, anyway) that still have outside TV antennas; that's the bowling alley down the street from my apartment, and a house currently for sale on the next street over from me. (The new owners of the latter may well eventually take down that antenna, as it is falling apart [elements loose or having been broken off in high winds] and is so loose on its mast that it swings around every time there's a good wind.)

I sometimes wonder if the government, the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and others involved with the DTV transition are blowing this whole thing far out of proportion. As I said at the beginning of this post, the US government has far more important things to worry about than whether or not people are going to have TV reception after June 12. The argument that people will not get emergency information if they do not have TV doesn't hold water either. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts over the radio as well as over television, so anyone with a radio capable of receiving their area's local stations can get the information they need that way. Who will be watching television in the middle of a tornado, hurricane, terrorist attack, etc. anyway?

Another question. What did people do to get emergency information before television was invented and even after that, when sets were too expensive for most people to afford? They heard emergency warnings and the like....yup, you guessed it, over the radio. (I don't mean to "dumb down" this post with that statement; I'm just trying to make a point, and am fed up with the government's worrying that people won't hear emergency information if their TV reception is cut off after June 12.) There were at least two predecessors to today's EAS--Conelrad in the '50s-'60s, and the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) in the '70s through the mid-nineties. Today's Emergency Alert System does a much better job of disseminating emergency information than Conelrad did, as emergency bulletins and such are broadcast over all stations in the affected area; Conelrad required all stations, except the designated Conelrad alert station on 640 or 1240 kHz, in the warning area to shut down until further notice. With the EAS, as long as listeners are within range of a local radio station, they will hear the emergency info they need right on the spot. Conelrad's major fault, IMO, was that listeners had to be within broadcast range of the local alert station; these stations, as I understand it, operated at extremely low power levels and, therefore, had very limited range. If a warning, alert, etc. were broadcast over the Conelrad emergency alert station in your area and you could hear it, great. If not (because you were out of range of the station or if you could not find the Conelrad station on your radio, as some sets didn't have CD markings on their tuning dials even during the Conelrad era), you were out of luck. The latter is a situation no one can afford to be in during an emergency.

[kx250rider]

I still use antenna reception on some TVs. It's more convenient than hooking up the DirecTV box, especially if I'm just sticking a portable TV in a place where I want to watch the news while doing some sort of a project. And the antenna reception on digital ATSC here in California (Ventura County), it's better, and gets more channels than the NTSC ever did! In fact, it's so good that I'd switch entirely to air ATSC if my wife didn't have to get the DirecTV channels that aren't broadcast over the air. At the Dallas house, it's all rabbit ears since we aren't there enough to warrant any pay signal.

In an emergency, I always get the local CBS AM radio station (KNX-Los Angeles). I don't know if it's a personal habit, or common sense.

Charles

[bsujeep]

Everyone who does not currently have HD locals available through the satellite company or those who realize that the HD from the satellite is inferior in quality to the on available over the air.

I guess that would include me.

[peverett]

I see flaws in your arguments, Jeffs.

1. There are many people in or near large cities that cannot afford cable or satellite, so use indoor antennas. With analog TV most of these people were able to reliably get the local stations. With DTV, it remains to be seen what they will get.

2. When was the last time you saw a radar image on a radio? Radar images of severe storms are definitely worth 1000 words.

3. You talk about warnings in past days. Have you looked at the death toll from tornados, etc in the old days. You will find that they are much higher than now. This is due to both better tornado detection equipment and better warning systems. These better warning systems include both weather radios and reliable television reception.

[Ed in Tx]

Recently read that in Texas it's about 60% that receive TV OTA with an antenna. Many areas are not served with cable, or people simply not willing to pay exorbitant prices for cable or little dish. Read in a trade magazine antenna sales are up about 160% from people dumping cable or satellite going OTA, or upgrading to get DTV on the OTA broadcast channels. I have 3 outside TV antennas myself.

[SDA SRS 1.2]

I subscribe to Dish Network and receive my local (40 miles away) stations that way. Dish has not offered these stations yet in HD and therefore a deep fringe antenna is my only hope of receiving "local" HD signals. My only regret is that the reception of digital signals is too vulnerable to rain/wind and the coverage area is not as great as the former analog signal.

[radiotvnut]

I use an antenna on the bedroom TV. I can receive 10 channels (including RTN) and that's all I need. The only reason I got cable was so I could have high speed internet.

My brother-in-law does not have any pay TV service and uses an antenna and DTV converter on both of his TV's. Once I hooked up his DTV boxes; he was amazed at the number of clear channels that were available and said he'd never pay to watch TV again.

My cousin lives out in the country and uses an antenna. He's so tight he squeaks and would not dream of paying $60+ a month to watch TV. He recently told me that he thought about getting the basic dish package; but, that all went out the window once I set up his DTV boxes.

I have a friend that has satellite service; but, local channels do not come with the deal. He lives so far out in the woods that he can't receive any OTA reception with rabbit ears. He wouldn't hear of an outside antenna. So, yes, there are plenty of satellite users that rely on an antenna for local channels.

I know there are many TV junkies that would never dream of giving up their 500 channels of service; but, there are plenty of casual TV watchers who will probably dump cable once they find out what is available free of charge OTA.

As far as emergency weather warnings, the local ABC affiliate is the only good source of information. Most of the radio stations are automated; so, they are out of the question. So, my next project will be to obtain a DC operated DTV converter and pair it with one of my portable TV's for emergency use. Of course, the digital signal may not be usable in severe weather.

[Ampico-kid]

I for one refuse to pay some cable or satelite company for programing that I could not care less about, and be at their mercy for uncontrolled and frequent rate increases for the service. The average basic cable costs in this part of the country are in the $50 a month range. I'd much rather see that $600 a year in my pocket than in the pocket of some cable exective. When the cable or satelite companies start to offer an A LA Carte selection for the channels that they provide, I'll reconsider my position, but until that time I'll keep my antenna.

I live in the NY metropolitan area and receive all of the broadcast signals fine with my outdoor antenna. I'm perfectly content to receive 25 or 30 OTA stations which cost me no monthy fees.

Bob.

[radiotvnut]

Originally Posted by Ampico-kid

I for one refuse to pay some cable or satelite company for programing that I could not care less about, and be at their mercy for uncontrolled and frequent rate increases for the service. The average basic cable costs in this part of the country are in the $50 a month range. I'd much rather see that $600 a year in my pocket than in the pocket of some cable exective. When the cable or satelite companies start to offer an A LA Carte selection for the channels that they provide, I'll reconsider my position, but until that time I'll keep my antenna.

I live in the NY metropolitan area and receive all of the broadcast signals fine with my outdoor antenna. I'm perfectly content to receive 25 or 30 OTA stations which cost me no monthy fees.

Bob.

I can remember, back around '83, when the cable was around $17/month. Now, the same basic service is almost $60/month. They justify the rate increases with some line like "we've added "x" number of new channels". What do I care how many channels they've added if there's nothing on them that I care to see. If it wasn't for the internet, I would have never gotten cable!

[newhallone]

17 was too much then , and 60 is too much now. Tho I am sure there was still some decent channels on the basic tier then, as to nothing now.

[peverett]

I wish they would broadcast all these subchannels I see discussed in my location. So far, only one decent one-an RTN type network is broadcast.

One other station broadcasts weather information all the time on their subchannel(pretty boring most of the time). PBS broadcasts craft shows on their subchannel(also pretty boring, at least to me). The others only broadcast their main channel, the same as analog TV.

As to usability in stormy weather, the only local station that converted to full DTV on Feb 17 here was pretty much un-usable on Saturday, just a very windy day(no storms). I would assume they are full power at this point. The bummer is that they are the ones carrying the RTN type channel.

[radiotvnut]

Originally Posted by newhallone

17 was too much then , and 60 is too much now. Tho I am sure there was still some decent channels on the basic tier then, as to nothing now.

Back then, we may have had 20-25 channels. Now, we have 60+. The quality of programming was better back when we had fewer channels.

[illinoisteve]

Can't get cable out here in the boondocks. If I could, I wouldn't get it. Seems like if I had to pay that much money to watch TV, I shouldn't have to see any commercials. Some neighbors have satellite TV. It's too expensive, and, as with cable, I'd have to pay for a lot of channels I don't want along with the ones I wanted.

Bought a digital converter early last summer. Was going to get a second one before the second coupon expired, but I couldn't really afford the expense that month.

Use a large indoor UHF antenna. Sometimes the signals are bad, but not usually. The trouble is, if the signal fluctuates much the picture stops or I get a blue screen, windy and stormy weather affect the digital signal more than it ever did the analog.

In this area, all or most of the analog signals were shut off on the original Feb 17 deadline. The stations simply couldn't afford to keep broadcasting two signals for months more. It would have put our public TV station over 50,000 dollars in debt. After all of the analog signals went off, the digital signals of all of the stations became MUCH clearer.

Fulton Co, Illinois

[bgadow]

We have not had pay TV for about 7 years now; don't miss it.
I keep a small TV at work in case big news breaks. No pay TV there.
My Dad has Dish Network; neither dish service offers our local stations. A good deal of what he and my stepmom watch are OTA.
My in-laws got rid of their dish when they saw the selection available with digital for free.
Note, though, that all of us have made the digital switch. (well, I've yet to carry a converter box to work-there is one local station still on analog. Seems silly to have a convertor box for that 12" bw Philco-Ford but come June I'll need it. Maybe I'll upgrade to a GE 'AB'!)

[centralflori]

We had cable and then satelite tv for years. Recently we switched to the dtv over the air and it works great. We miss a few channels, but we also get some channels that we didn't with satelite.