Cable vs. OTA

[mcq]

A recent lively topic, Tim C's Journal article, and other pertinant posts got me thinking about something I want to investigate.

Cable, and the HDTV broadcast of local stations are important to the furthering of HDTV as an accepted technology. And the lack of HDTV broadcasts and quality therein are currently damaging HDTV acceptance.

[mcq]

First of all, I have a bias that I must divulge. I hate cable. I hate the monopoly of it. I hate the price of it. I hate the inflexibility of it. And I hate AOL which owns Time/Warner.

whew

Recently, I have been thinking about getting cable merely to watch Fox 6. This is really killing me. I even commented earlier that for Fox 6 to put it's crappy signal on cable now, and delaying its OTA until next Packer season is pure business genius. It's only lately, during a lively discussion about Tim C's article, and posts from a very passionate cable viewer, did it occur to me how "genius" this actually is.

I bought my parent's house. Sometime in the early seventies my dad put up an antenna tripod and a rotor+antenna, so that he could pull Packer games out of Chicago. I have since replaced the antenna, and we do use it for local channels on several TV's. Lately, I have been pulling in digital OTA signals. The antenna is there, and it is no big deal.

Sometime in the sixties and seventies 100% of all households used antennae to pull in TV. According to National Cable & Telecommunications Association, in 2001 69.2% of all households are at least basic Cable Subscribers. Does this make me a dinosaur?

Now for the real problem, is OTA here for the benefit of cable or vice versa. We are making such a huge fuss out of our local stations OTA brodcasts, Why are they even spending the money on expense transmitters, expensive towers,  and expensive electricity. Couldn't these TV stations get "off the air" and just "mail it in" to cable, like Fox 6 is doing.

Will HDTV drive us back to antennae or do all have to acquisce to cable.

I like OTA 'cause it's still free. That may change as this digital thing matures.

(Thanx to gyoung for making me think seriously about his comment that cable is a preferred method of receiving TV)    

[mnr929rr]

I know what you mean about it being free,but when you figure out the amount of money you have already spent on equipment,it kinda gets you angry that you can only watch a hand full of programs. Oh well,it's still pretty cool.

[Kevin Arnold]

Here is where it gets interesting. Right now OTA STB's are fairly high priced and under promoted. As time goes by these STB's will drop in price to around $80-$100 in one to two years. (You can argue the timeline but not the trend.) Cable, on the other hand, will not be decreasing anytime soon. Steady 4% to 10% a year increases is a reasonable expectation. One could make the arugment of taking cable for a year until the OTA box becomes affordable and then making the switch or just buying a new
tv in 2 years with a built in tuner. Unless Fox 6 has some miracle of negotiating up their sleeve, I doubt they could get on TW before their playoff games were done. After that there is little reason to watch Fox in digital. Remember, every station has the capability to be a mini cable system broadcasting 4 channels when there HD signal is off and 3 (ala CBS58) when their HD signal is on and this doesn't even consider pay per view possibilities. All in all this cable thing seems over-rated. Let's see $40 x 12 mo.s (avg. in the area) just for basic service = $480 plus the premiums. And $400 is too much for the box?

[SugarRay]

The problem OTA will run into in the years to come is when all the other stations (TBS, TNN, ESPN, etc)... go HD. If you are OTA, you will only be getting 10+ channels vs cable you may have 50 in HD

[sp44again]

 

Originally posted by SugarRay:
The problem OTA will run into in the years to come is when all the other stations (TBS, TNN, ESPN, etc)... go HD. If you are OTA, you will only be getting 10+ channels vs cable you may have 50 in HD

Exactly!

[Joseph S]

By then you will have $1800 in your pocket and 3 years of HDTV OTA service with your own personal HD PVR. Then again, TWC claims to offer NBC, ABC, and PBS already. The fact that there is a major technical screwup doesn't prevent them from claiming whatever they say.

Imagine how much screen space the "Super New TNN" could hog. I really wish DISH or DirecTV would set up a cable version. There is zero competition for those unable to use a Dish due to line of site issues.

[gyoung]

Not to mention that TWC will probably start charging for the HD tuner and/or adding the HD programming for a premium price only.

You just know that when it takes off they will see $$$ in their eyes.

[mcq]

 

Originally posted by SugarRay:
The problem OTA will run into in the years to come is when all the other stations (TBS, TNN, ESPN, etc)... go HD. If you are OTA, you will only be getting 10+ channels vs cable you may have 50 in HD

So are you telling me that I can continue being a cable bigot maybe for the next couple of years, but sooner or later I will be assimilated. I don't see satellite (which I have) providing all of those networks in HD.... The merger may have been able to allow that, but how mant birds can they actually get up there. And worse, will I be my own ground station with how many satellite antennae??

[This message has been edited by mcq (edited 12-16-2002).]

[Ron Pollitt]

Well, I'll add my two cents.  I'm located way out where TWC cable doesn't provide coverage (we have Charter Communications cable service who has told me they don't plan to carry HDTV in our area till Fed. mandated-2006)so my only option is OTA or satellite (no local HD channels).
  It wasn't expensive to set up for OTA, my Set-top box was a new Sensory Science HDTV100 which was being liquidated on E-bay and cost me $237.50- works fine. Outside UHF antenna and Preamp(less than $100).  So at $60 per month my cost would be amortized in six months but...I don't have the cable option.

So...inspite of which is better OTA vs. Cable, all of you quit whineing and be thankful you have a "choice"....GRIN.

Now, how can I justify the $3,200 Plasma unit?

Ron

------------------
SensoryScience HDT100 STB
NEC 42" Plasma Monitor
Lance 4-bowtieUHF Antenna
C/M UHF Preamp 7555
C/M Rotor with remote
Charter Cable(no HDTV)

[Tom Snyder]

I love a free market economy.   At some point there will be enough demand for HDTV that it will represent a market share worth fighting over. Once there is the financial incentive to do so, the cable companies AND the satellite companies will figure out a way to come up with the bandwidth necessary to profitably capture the necessary market segmnet.

In the meantime, we either adapt an attitude of pragmatism or we find a good therpist to help us with our anger management.

My relationship with Time Warner has been one of constant low-level dissatisfaction, punctuated by bursts of rage (usually brought on by a interface with their cumstlkmer service department). I currently use them for RoadRunner, basic tier service for 5 tv's around the house, and a feed of the Weather Channel that gives me a local forecast and radar. Their "digital" picture quality sucks on my 40 inch Toshiba Widescreen.

DirecTV has been wonderful. The picture quality is light years ahead of cable, their CSR's have always been helpful. They provide me with HDNet and HBO HD, and the satellite box I bought to let me pick up their signal gives me OTA HD for all the locals except for 6.

Do I wish I didn't need be paying money to both of them? You bet. But until one of them finds a way to meet all my needs, I'll continue to do business with both and be unhappy about it.

[Talos4]

 

Originally posted by SugarRay:
The problem OTA will run into in the years to come is when all the other stations (TBS, TNN, ESPN, etc)... go HD. If you are OTA, you will only be getting 10+ channels vs cable you may have 50 in HD

Isn't this the same situation we're in now?  

I really believe that this is the same situation encountered in the 60's when my dad complained about having to get a STB to watch a part time channel 19,  because they played movies he really liked.

While I haven't taken the HDTV plunge yet, ( still haven't convinced mgmnt our 3 yr old panny is "almost" out of date) I put up an OTA antenna and rotor just so I could get a better picture here in the city.

BTW, I've been a luker for a while now and have greatly enjoyed the civil conversations and the information passed on.  Thank you!  

[gyoung]

 

I currently use them for RoadRunner, basic tier service for 5 tv's around the house, and a feed of the Weather Channel that gives me a local forecast and radar. Their "digital" picture quality sucks on my 40 inch Toshiba Widescreen.

What channel are you using on TWC for local forcast and radar?  Is it the same channel as the Weather Channel (64)?  TWC in Indianapolis (my former home) had 2 additional weather channels.  Both were 24 hour local weather stations run by the local NBC & CBS affiliates.  For local weather here I have to wait for the 8's on TWC channel 64.

[sp44again]

 

Originally posted by Tom Snyder:
I love a free market economy.   At some point there will be enough demand for HDTV that it will represent a market share worth fighting over. Once there is the financial incentive to do so, the cable companies AND the satellite companies will figure out a way to come up with the bandwidth necessary to profitably capture the necessary market segmnet.

In the meantime, we either adapt an attitude of pragmatism or we find a good therpist to help us with our anger management.

My relationship with Time Warner has been one of constant low-level dissatisfaction, punctuated by bursts of rage (usually brought on by a interface with their cumstlkmer service department). I currently use them for RoadRunner, basic tier service for 5 tv's around the house, and a feed of the Weather Channel that gives me a local forecast and radar. Their "digital" picture quality sucks on my 40 inch Toshiba Widescreen.

DirecTV has been wonderful. The picture quality is light years ahead of cable, their CSR's have always been helpful. They provide me with HDNet and HBO HD, and the satellite box I bought to let me pick up their signal gives me OTA HD for all the locals except for 6.

Do I wish I didn't need be paying money to both of them? You bet. But until one of them finds a way to meet all my needs, I'll continue to do business with both and be unhappy about it.

Why do you have TW basic tier for 5 TV's if it's so bad? I'm surprised you don't have Athenet or Earthlink for broadband cause it's cheaper and gives less money to TW. I'm using Athenet now just to stick to TW for charging more.

[Tom Snyder]

Those TV's are all small screen analog sets that are only watched periodically (kid's rooms, basement, etc.) so picture quality isn't really that important.

I suppose I could switch to another of those ISP's who use Time Warner's wires. And I may just do that at some point.

But here's the irony: Had Time Warner begun passing through 6's digital signal, I would have picked digital cable back up just to watch the Packer games in Widescreen.

I didn't say I was consistant or logical.