Think about it. There's a lot of overhead associated with maintaining a broadcast license. The FCC obviously regulates the physical infrastructure and imposes some content restrictions for broadcast TV. The airwaves are considered to be property of the public and thus broadcasters must operate, to some degree, in the public interest. TV markets, advertising rules, educational programming, product placement in kids programming, are all rigidly structured. They also regulate the copper and fibre infrastructure of the Internet but they cannot legally control the content. There is no licensing requirement for video content creators that operate as an Internet service. There are no competition rules, no market saturation rules, no scheduling rules, etc. There wouldn't be a need for the major networks to negotiate affiliation agreements with the broadcast stations. They could operate online without restriction and with no need to set aside timeslots for local broadcasts they could air more content. I think we've essentially reached a turning point in the broadcast industry. Why would a network need to provide service to traditional broadcast stations when broadband QoS is very high and highly accessible, even in remote areas?
During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.
Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.
I still watch over the air, and local news is the majority of what I watch. I even watch local broadcasts when traveling - they're a great way to get to know an area.
I have a portable TV that is about the size of a smart phone, and I occasionally use it, most recently for the last 3 games of the World Series. It has HD and provides a better picture than my old and defunct Sony Trinitron TV that has a 19 inch screen.
This uses terrestrial broadcast TV over the air, and I find I useful.
The majority of TV I want is mostly local news and the traditional network stations for sports. Much like AM radio there will probably always be a market for more traditional means of TV. Some of us (myself for sure) really don't want to learn how to use streaming services or lug a portable device around with them. I've spent 7 of my 19 years in adult life with just network TV (which was easier to get when rabbit ears were a thing) and AM/FM radio, I could see going back to something more simple like that again the future.
10TV WBNS in Columbus (CBS) and its Indianapolis counterpart just sold for $550 million so the business community must feel there is some future value in midsize market local affiliates.
We were at a tailgate in Columbia, SC this past weekend and could watch the LSU-Alabama game on the local CBS affiliate using a HD digital TV antenna. No satellite dish or subscription required. (Oh, and Geaux Tigers!!!)
There are a whole lot of people who do just fine with free over-the-air broadcasts and don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.
If I could get any OTA stations outside the local religious TV station, and if so many of the sports events I watch (Kentucky football and basketball and NASCAR) weren't shown on non-OTA outlets, I could be content dropping a paid service.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 14, 2019, 06:44:35 PM
Why would a network need to provide service to traditional broadcast stations when broadband QoS is very high and highly accessible, even in remote areas?
Because many rural areas still don't have reliable and/or cost-effective internet that's fast enough to handle video 24/7/365. Hughesnet is now where cable internet was 15 years ago. Watch more than a few movies or ballgames, and you're throttled back, at least as of the last time I read their terms of service a couple months ago.
I just signed up with YouTube TV, which will replace DirecTV when Sunday Ticket ends. It works 90% of the time, but there are still buffering issues. And I have an 80 Mb internet connection with my local phone company.
But most of the time (other than sports), I'm watching TV via an antenna. I'm in metro Phoenix, 25 miles from the transmitters on South Mountain. Because of the construction of my house (stucco/lath, which is what 3/4 of the houses are built of in this metro), an indoor antenna is problematic at best. I have an outdoor antenna connected to some of my sets, and it works great, but most people aren't allowed to put one up due to HOAs (the OTARD law is completely unenforceable).
In the "Star Trek:The Next Generation" episode called "The Neutral Zone". Data says that TV as a form of entertainment died out in the 2040's. Considering the script was written before broadband communications was around and the presence of the net fractured mass media, that decade might just be about spot on when seen from 2019's perspective.
Rick
When I switched to streaming from cable last year, I found getting an antenna and watching the local stations with it is a great alternative. The streaming feed of locals is 30-45 seconds delayed, plus it saves data if you have a data cap with your internet service. I can watch local news and Sunday football without it counting against the cap, plus some of the stations and subchannels aren't available on streaming, as well as the NFL preseason games on local stations.
- There are people who just get TV OTA. There are yet more who are so called "cord cutters" (actually cord switchers, a true cord cutter would have OTA and free streaming things like Pluto and STIRR only) who use streaming services combined with OTA TV.
- Local news has no interest to me. It really is not that "local" and mostly consists of murder statistics and local politicians claiming they are not what they are. Only watch it when the weather is bad.
- The issue about OTA TV is access to the network programs. Local stations are an unneeded and useless middleman between the networks and me for their programming. I would not mind at all to just get NBC, et al, direct from NBC.
The networks would mind if like to get rid of their locals. It's sort of like the hostility between oil companies and car dealers with the car manufacturers when they go all electric.
But the locals are really good a DC and regs. I am grandfathered in DISH to the superstations. They get exclusive cable and satellite and are trying to do the same with streaming. All this while the FCC let's them sell them signal.
I used to enjoy Dx on TV. It was still possible to do it with digital. But now with these singularities a lot of them are cutting power.
As to news coverage you don't want to be at the edge of their exclusive viewing areas you won't get much.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2019, 11:56:10 PM
There are a whole lot of people who ... don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.
This is the answer.
No, perhaps we don't need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore, but why get rid of it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2019, 07:46:29 PM
During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.
Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.
The EAS operates over cellular networks now, in a broadcast fashion similar to TV. I would hope in dangerous weather events like tornadoes that alerts get pushed to peoples' phones.
If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work. But the cell towers, copper/fibre backbone and even some cable and DSL modems should be equipped with generators/battery backups. The Internet is a packet-switched network, so if a direct path to a server is down the packets will be pushed around it. So long as your local DNS server is up you can still go anywhere.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2019, 11:56:10 PM
There are a whole lot of people who do just fine with free over-the-air broadcasts and don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.
If I could get any OTA stations outside the local religious TV station, and if so many of the sports events I watch (Kentucky football and basketball and NASCAR) weren't shown on non-OTA outlets, I could be content dropping a paid service.
I would bet that a lot of OTA viewers are low-income or over the age of 65.
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2019, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2019, 11:56:10 PM
There are a whole lot of people who ... don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.
This is the answer.
No, perhaps we don't need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore, but why get rid of it?
If it become a no-longer-viable business venture, then stations will start going off-the-air.
I need it. I only subscribe to local channel cable on 1 TV. I have 2 more up in the bedrooms, where signal strength is much better due to elevation. Don't want to pay for a lot of stuff I'm not going to watch anyway. Don't mean to offend, but guessing my cable bill is much smaller than a lot of your's! :D
I think we do, but I'd love to see retrans fees go away under our must-carry rules. My cable bill shouldn't have to subsidize them if I am watching the ads anyways (my argument can be extended to any cable stations that run ads, too).
I still watch local over-the-air stations, since I don't have cable. A couple months ago, I buyed a new TV, which has much better reception than the piece of junk I had before. It's still nothing compared to what it was in the analog era though.
Why pay for cable when you can get over-the-air TV for free?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2019, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2019, 11:56:10 PM
There are a whole lot of people who ... don't feel the need to pay for cable or satellite or streaming services.
This is the answer.
No, perhaps we don't need terrestrial broadcast TV anymore, but why get rid of it?
If it become a no-longer-viable business venture, then stations will start going off-the-air.
If there are still stations on the air, then it must be a viable business venture. Or, to argue in different way: if it was viable before, then it's still viable today.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work.
No he won't. He specifically mentioned a battery-operated TV set in the post you quoted.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
copper/fibre backbone and even some cable and DSL modems should be equipped with generators/battery backups. The Internet is a packet-switched network, so if a direct path to a server is down the packets will be pushed around it. So long as your local DNS server is up you can still go anywhere.
I can only speak for Cox Communications, as that's the only MSO I'm intimately familiar with. But Cox provides both internet and phone service through cable modems. Older models (Specifically Motorola SB5220 and SB5222) of these eMTAs had two slots for backup batteries. Ten years ago, the norm used to be to provide one backup battery per installation, two upon customer request. As each battery had an eight-hour life, that meant nobody would ever have more than 16 hours of battery backup, and most people would only get eight. Eventually, Cox transitioned to only putting backup batteries in at the customer's request, and getting one incurred an additional installation charge. Later and even contemporary eMTA models (specifically various Arris models) had only one slot for a backup battery, so nobody with those would ever get more than eight hours.
However, this is all specific to eMTAs with phone service, and it is provided as an option out of concern for customers' safety: in the case of a power outage, someone might need to place an emergency call. I'm not aware of any internet-only modems that have battery backup. So, for most current customers, unless they have landline phone AND that same modem is running their internet AND they specifically requested to have a battery installed –their internet will drop as soon as the power goes out.
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2019, 04:54:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work.
No he won't. He specifically mentioned a battery-operated TV set in the post you quoted.
Somewhere, I still have a couple of small hand-held TVs from the analog era. They worked fine to pick up the Lexington stations when I lived in Winchester. Great for when the power was off and I still wanted to catch local stations for storm warnings. This was long before the days of smartphones.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2019, 07:46:29 PM
During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.
Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.
The EAS operates over cellular networks now, in a broadcast fashion similar to TV. I would hope in dangerous weather events like tornadoes that alerts get pushed to peoples' phones.
Not quite - while the WEA (Wireless Emergency Alerts) system does relay certain warning types such as tornado and flash flood warnings, amber alerts, and national emergencies to cell phones, it is generally less versatile than the EAS is. And participation in the program is completely voluntary, so some cell networks may not even offer it.
In my experience, it's also slow. I know I've received amber alerts on my phone only around 30 minutes after hearing it first from a weather radio.
edit: fixed quote tags
Quote from: SP Cook on November 15, 2019, 02:36:38 PM
- There are people who just get TV OTA. There are yet more who are so called "cord cutters" (actually cord switchers, a true cord cutter would have OTA and free streaming things like Pluto and STIRR only) who use streaming services combined with OTA TV.
The phrase came about when Hulu was free, Netflix had virtually everything that Hulu didn't, and their DVD by mail service was included with the service and had the few things that weren't on the streaming service. The cost comparison was very different back then. Compare to now, where getting the same amount of content would require two Netflix subscriptions (both streaming and DVD), a subscription for Hulu, as well as ones for Amazon Prime, Disney+, and soon Peacock and HBO Max too. Cord cutting used to be cheap, even with paid streaming, but now it's approaching the price of the cable bundles it was meant to replace.
Quote
- Local news has no interest to me. It really is not that "local" and mostly consists of murder statistics and local politicians claiming they are not what they are. Only watch it when the weather is bad.
How local local news is depends on the station, the media market, the company that owns the station, and where in the media market you live. Sinclair stations in particular are known to be focused more on national news than others. When I'm traveling, I definitely have stations I like more than others (although my favorite is WTEN right here in Albany, and my second favorite is WROC over in Rochester). And, of course, the further you live from the metro area the station is based in, fewer stories will be "local" to where you specifically live. Speaking from someone who lives in a suburb of the main city in my media market watching from a Nextar station, most coverage I watch is local, and most of the rest is state. National news only makes it past a level of detail that on ABC World News Tonight would be part of the Index if it's really major. Also, the weather is more accurate than what I could get from sites like Weather Underground or especially the Weather Channel or AccuWeather.
Quote
- The issue about OTA TV is access to the network programs. Local stations are an unneeded and useless middleman between the networks and me for their programming. I would not mind at all to just get NBC, et al, direct from NBC.
If you want that, move to NYC. Almost all their local stations are owned and operated directly by the networks.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 15, 2019, 02:36:38 PM
- There are people who just get TV OTA. There are yet more who are so called "cord cutters" (actually cord switchers, a true cord cutter would have OTA and free streaming things like Pluto and STIRR only) who use streaming services combined with OTA TV.
There's no such thing as a "cord cutter" unless you get 100% of your TV from broadcast stations. By definition, all internet connections are corded, from the backbone to the connection to your modem. Even when you watch on your cellphone via the cellphone company, only the connection to the cell site is wireless. The term "cord cutter" needs to go away.
Quote- The issue about OTA TV is access to the network programs. Local stations are an unneeded and useless middleman between the networks and me for their programming. I would not mind at all to just get NBC, et al, direct from NBC.
The broadcast networks have lost money or broke even for most of their existence, going back to the late 1940s. The networks make most of their money from their O&O stations and from a cut of the subscriber fees from their affiliates. Besides, the NBC network only broadcasts for part of the day, and that percentage has been shrinking for 50 years.
Quote from: vdeane on November 15, 2019, 10:17:09 PM
Also, the weather is more accurate than what I could get from sites like Weather Underground or especially the Weather Channel or AccuWeather.
I don't understand why people don't just get their weather forecasts straight from the horse's mouth. A NWS weather radio is, like, twenty dollars, if you can't just get it from their website.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 15, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 14, 2019, 07:46:29 PM
During a tornado event, Internet and cell service, even on otherwise perfectly reliable networks, will consistently go out. (My guess with the cell network is due to a spike in traffic due to people checking on loved ones/"it passed and I'm OK" messages.) Broadcast radio and television from a battery-operated device thus remains the most reliable way of getting weather information in real time.
Obviously this is going to be a primary concern only in places like central Oklahoma where it happens a lot, but it suggests that broadcast media has some advantages over the Internet in other types of emergency/disaster situations.
The EAS operates over cellular networks now, in a broadcast fashion similar to TV. I would hope in dangerous weather events like tornadoes that alerts get pushed to peoples' phones.
If you loose electric service, though, your TV won't work. But the cell towers, copper/fibre backbone and even some cable and DSL modems should be equipped with generators/battery backups. The Internet is a packet-switched network, so if a direct path to a server is down the packets will be pushed around it. So long as your local DNS server is up you can still go anywhere.
Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).
The electric grid in central Oklahoma is robust enough that it isn't normally affected on a network level by severe weather. A tornado, of course, will affect it by snapping individual lines and poles and causing localized outages. So if you're losing power, chances are you're fucked anyway, and need to be in the shelter.
Battery operated radios and TVs are important safety equipment to have in this part of the country.
The most reliable indicator that you need to take shelter is whether your municipal tornado sirens are blowing. Norman has such fine control over their siren system that a tornado on the east side won't blow sirens on the west side. I would imagine OKC has this level of control too–there's zero point in blowing the sirens at May and Hefner if there's a tornado at SW 104th and Penn.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 16, 2019, 01:22:23 AM
Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).
This is why you pay attention to the actual warning polygon, and not just which county(ies) are in said polygon. Unfortunately, there's no way to know where the polygon is without either broadcast TV or Internet service.
Also, the 2013 El Reno tornado reached up to 2.6 miles wide. It was an outlier, to be sure, but to say tornadoes only reach a mile wide isn't accurate.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 16, 2019, 01:30:52 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 16, 2019, 01:22:23 AM
Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).
This is why you pay attention to the actual warning polygon, and not just which county(ies) are in said polygon. Unfortunately, there's no way to know where the polygon is without either broadcast TV or Internet service.
Also, the 2013 El Reno tornado reached up to 2.6 miles wide. It was an outlier, to be sure, but to say tornadoes only reach a mile wide isn't accurate.
Right. The purpose of that sentence was not to imply that a tornado can only be one mile wide or less, but to illustrate how tornadoes are different than other types of high-end weather events like hurricanes or blizzards that will affect an entire metro area all at once. Even if a city is hit by a major tornado outbreak, the chances that any specific point in the city will be hit by a tornado remains low.
Quote from: US 89 on November 15, 2019, 05:44:02 PMNot quite - while the WEA (Wireless Emergency Alerts) system does relay certain warning types such as tornado and flash flood warnings, amber alerts, and national emergencies to cell phones, it is generally less versatile than the EAS is. And participation in the program is completely voluntary, so some cell networks may not even offer it.
In my experience, it's also slow. I know I've received amber alerts on my phone only around 30 minutes after hearing it first from a weather radio.
Also, it's important to remember that, like broadband internet, cellular coverage is not universal.
In about an hour, I'm going to be driving from Montréal to near Hartford. Normally, I stream my audio entertainment. But for this drive, I will be relying on content downloaded to my phone because there are just too many dead spots.
When my father moved into his apartment, he insisted on doing without a landline telephone. This is annoying as cell reception in his apartment only exists...barely...when leaning against the windows.
A weather radio with alerting function is a good idea for every household.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 16, 2019, 01:52:45 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 16, 2019, 01:30:52 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 16, 2019, 01:22:23 AM
Alerts do get pushed, but they are somewhat useless for tornadoes because, unlike most forms of weather, are very localized. Remember, only the worst tornadoes approach a mile wide, and most of them are far narrower. I have gotten cell alerts that warn of a tornado on the opposite end of the metro from me. Helpful to know that tornadoes are about, and to keep an eye on them, but not useful for the purposes of deciding whether or not to take shelter (if you heed even county-level tornado warnings you are going to spend hours in the shelter that you don't need to be).
This is why you pay attention to the actual warning polygon, and not just which county(ies) are in said polygon. Unfortunately, there's no way to know where the polygon is without either broadcast TV or Internet service.
Also, the 2013 El Reno tornado reached up to 2.6 miles wide. It was an outlier, to be sure, but to say tornadoes only reach a mile wide isn't accurate.
Right. The purpose of that sentence was not to imply that a tornado can only be one mile wide or less, but to illustrate how tornadoes are different than other types of high-end weather events like hurricanes or blizzards that will affect an entire metro area all at once. Even if a city is hit by a major tornado outbreak, the chances that any specific point in the city will be hit by a tornado remains low.
The odds of a tornado strike affecting humans rises in proportion to the amount of trailer parks present...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 16, 2019, 01:52:45 AM
The purpose of that sentence was not to imply that a tornado can only be one mile wide or less, but to illustrate how tornadoes are different than other types of high-end weather events like hurricanes or blizzards that will affect an entire metro area all at once. Even if a city is hit by a major tornado outbreak, the chances that any specific point in the city will be hit by a tornado remains low.
The "zone of uncertainty" for a tornado is much larger than that, plus you have effects that are outside of the funnel itself, such as rear flank downdraft which can have hurricane-force winds, and the raining down of debris that are heavy enough to be dangerous to people and property.
So for that one-mile diameter funnel, figure a 3-mile circle that may travel for 10 miles in yet unknown pathway.
That is enough to be a major emergency to an entire metropolitan area the size of Oklahoma City.
Quote from: rlb2024 on November 14, 2019, 10:35:11 PM
We were at a tailgate in Columbia, SC this past weekend and could watch the LSU-Alabama game on the local CBS affiliate using a HD digital TV antenna. No satellite dish or subscription required. (Oh, and Geaux Tigers!!!)
WLTX-TV (CBS) channel 19 of Columbia. The 400 pound gorilla there is WIS-TV (NBC) channel 10.
I haven't watched OTA programming in years and don't use cable for TV, either, really.
I just pay for an Internet only plan and pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime.
I think we need terrestrial TV. I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio. If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back. I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.
I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place. Because of its signal limitations, it's clearly inferior to analog. The only improvement seems to be a slightly sharper picture on the few stations you can still pick up. Big wow. Like I was really worried about that.
I had more important things in life to worry about, and society had more important things to worry about. People were starving, and government and the TV industry had to spend all that money switching to an inferior broadcast method instead of on things that were important?
Quote from: bandit957 on November 17, 2019, 03:35:53 PM
I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place.
The "gnawing need" had to do with the limited real estate available in the radio spectrum, the growing demand for radio spectrum space from other wireless technologies (chiefly, mobile phones), and analog television's relatively inefficient use of the space it occupied.
The illustration below is from Australia, so the details may vary slightly, but it's conceptually similar to what was done with analog TV's spectrum in the US. The blue portion of top bar represents the spectrum consumed by analog TV broadcasts prior to the digital transition, and the red section in the lower bar shows the spectrum freed for other uses.
(https://www.communications.gov.au/sites/default/files/839-1.jpg?acsf_files_redirect)
Hm. So we traded free stuff for stuff we have to pay for.
Quote from: renegade on November 17, 2019, 03:29:12 PM
I think we need terrestrial TV. I’m watching it right now. It’s a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio. If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that’s perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we’re never going to be able to get it back. I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.
Ever see "Max Headroom"? The movie and the TV show came out before we had net for anyone willing to pay for it. In the dystopic future of this story, pay TV has taken over, leaving the poor without access to the programming. OTA is pirate TV as done by the character Blank Reg.
Obviously the net changed everything but one thing which remains valid from a 30 year old bleak vision is that those who pay can have access. Instead of TV, now it is about broadband streaming. The new Disney channel got 10 million subscribers. That is less than 3% of the American population paying the bill but figure if some of those subscribers have other people in the household, the amount of population viewing this new offering could be around 10%.
Now go back to when ABC, NBC and CBS ruled the roost. If any of the Big Three only had 10% of the eyeballs, that network would be in serious trouble. Nowadays having 10% of the eyeballs translates into profitability thanks to people paying for this kind of service. 21st century media transitioning is certainly interesting to see!
Rick
Quote from: bandit957 on November 17, 2019, 03:35:53 PM
I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place. Because of its signal limitations, it's clearly inferior to analog. The only improvement seems to be a slightly sharper picture on the few stations you can still pick up. Big wow. Like I was really worried about that.
I had more important things in life to worry about, and society had more important things to worry about. People were starving, and government and the TV industry had to spend all that money switching to an inferior broadcast method instead of on things that were important?
I think it's interesting that many pundits tout the fact that you'll never have snow and whatnot with digital, as if having no signal (or something so choppy that it's unwatchable) at all is better.
Quote from: renegade on November 17, 2019, 03:29:12 PM
I think we need terrestrial TV. I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio. If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back. I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.
* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.
* All TV signals are "streamed". The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter. The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 17, 2019, 03:35:53 PM
I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place. Because of its signal limitations, it's clearly inferior to analog.
The short answer is that they needed to make room for the internet on those frequencies.
As internet tech has evolved, it takes up more and more space on the band. Back in the days of DOCSIS 2.0, your modem was sending and receiving packets on a single stream. That put a serious cap on how fast uploads and downloads could be. With the advent of DOCSIS 3.0, downstream started be transmitted on four streams simultaneously. Nowadays, with DOCSIS 3.1, modems commonly receive packets on up to 32 channels at once. I think it was sometime around the 24 channel mark that channels once allocated to video services were switched over to internet; we went all-digital in advance of that happening.
Yes we do. In South Carolina, a lot of people have OTA antennas and that has only grown because of cord-cutting. As an example, a whopping 9 of Clemson's 13 football games so far will air over the air this year (all on ABC).
Our ABC station is usually the #3 station in the market in Charleston, and Columbia's ABC is a distant 4th, but getting those games are a big boost of revenue to them. It's not like Birmingham or a couple of other markets, but Clemson and South Carolina games are usually the highest-rated TV shows every week throughout the state.
With Clemson's games being easier to find, that has grown their fan base over the past few years. South Carolina's OTA games on CBS (and the rare one on ABC) are just as big, maybe bigger.
The news most of these stations carry (especially the evening news) mostly caters to 60+ in this area, with ads for bathroom replacements, insurance, and political ads during primary season, but sports is probably the bigger money maker.
Is ABC at a disadvantage in Birmingham for over-the-air reception? You rely on channel 33 from one area (Tuscaloosa?) and channel 40 from Anniston? I think there was an in-town translator on channel 58. (Forgive me, as I've never been to Alabama.) I'm well aware than WBRC-TV (FOX) channel 6 was previously an ABC affiliate.
In Hartford/New Haven, our ABC station, WTNH-TV channel 8 of New Haven, is the one major station in the market using VHF for digital (channel 10). It's also coming off a transmitter in Hamden, a good distance south of the market core, which is Hartford County (i.e. Hartford, New Britain, Bristol and Manchester). Some may get WGGB-TV channel 40 of Springfield, MA for ABC, but that's for those closer to the MA border, such as Enfield.
Terrestrial TV over digital antenna makes even more sense with the rise of cord-cutters who rely heavily on streaming services. Few TV stations offer reliable streaming of their offerings, which can also be blocked based on digital rights (e.g. for sports broadcasts), so having a digital antenna is a big part of making cord-cutting viable.
I'll have to research on whether TV stations would be able to broadcast emergency messages for my area (namely earthquake/tsunami alerts and impacts) more effectively than pushed messages OTA, but I have a feeling it would be around the same but for a broader reach.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 18, 2019, 06:28:49 PM
Is ABC at a disadvantage in Birmingham for over-the-air reception? You rely on channel 33 from one area (Tuscaloosa?) and channel 40 from Anniston? I think there was an in-town translator on channel 58. (Forgive me, as I've never been to Alabama.) I'm well aware than WBRC-TV (FOX) channel 6 was previously an ABC affiliate.
In Hartford/New Haven, our ABC station, WTNH-TV channel 8 of New Haven, is the one major station in the market using VHF for digital (channel 10). It's also coming off a transmitter in Hamden, a good distance south of the market core, which is Hartford County (i.e. Hartford, New Britain, Bristol and Manchester). Some may get WGGB-TV channel 40 of Springfield, MA for ABC, but that's for those closer to the MA border, such as Enfield.
I've received both Hartford and Springfield stations from South Windsor. With the right antenna it's not too difficult.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 01:59:24 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 17, 2019, 03:29:12 PM
I think we need terrestrial TV. I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio. If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back. I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.
* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.
* All TV signals are "streamed". The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter. The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.
No. When I say "streaming," I am referring to Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV+, Disney+, HBO+ and things like that, not linear OTA broadcasts. They are not the same thing.
Though some cable and internet companies are using fiber optic to bring standard cables plus internet. I have fiber optic for internet. It's great and I use a TV just got stream from it and OTA. I still have DISH but the fiber optic streaming is the future.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 17, 2019, 03:35:53 PM
I'd like to know what gnawing need there was for us to switch to digital in the first place.
Simple. A broadcast license is a license to print money. A government granted monopoly, with a long history of corrupt insider deals. With digital the signal can be split, which led to all of these "diginets" so channel 3 NBC is now channel 3.1 NBC, 3.2 Me TV 3.3 Action 3.4 weather radar and 3.5 Stadium. Five times the channels, GIVEN to the broadcast monopolists.
Look at when this was all planned and you see it was a reward for 4 decades of loyal service.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 07:41:54 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 18, 2019, 06:28:49 PM
Is ABC at a disadvantage in Birmingham for over-the-air reception? You rely on channel 33 from one area (Tuscaloosa?) and channel 40 from Anniston? I think there was an in-town translator on channel 58. (Forgive me, as I've never been to Alabama.) I'm well aware than WBRC-TV (FOX) channel 6 was previously an ABC affiliate.
In Hartford/New Haven, our ABC station, WTNH-TV channel 8 of New Haven, is the one major station in the market using VHF for digital (channel 10). It's also coming off a transmitter in Hamden, a good distance south of the market core, which is Hartford County (i.e. Hartford, New Britain, Bristol and Manchester). Some may get WGGB-TV channel 40 of Springfield, MA for ABC, but that's for those closer to the MA border, such as Enfield.
I've received both Hartford and Springfield stations from South Windsor. With the right antenna it's not too difficult.
Pfft. My family got channel 3 from Hartford and the Springfield channels with just the TV's built in rabbit ears when I was a kid when we lived in the woods of northern Hampshire County. :D
Quote from: renegade on November 18, 2019, 11:15:44 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 01:59:24 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 17, 2019, 03:29:12 PM
I think we need terrestrial TV. I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio. If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back. I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.
* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.
* All TV signals are "streamed". The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter. The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.
No. When I say "streaming," I am referring to Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV+, Disney+, HBO+ and things like that, not linear OTA broadcasts. They are not the same thing.
So what do consider IPTV to be? Streaming or not streaming?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 07:41:54 PM
I've received both Hartford and Springfield stations from South Windsor. With the right antenna it's not too difficult.
I received WGGB-TV (ABC) channel 40 a grand total of ONCE in New Britain. I never received channel 22 (NBC) or 57 (PBS) in the Hardware City's south end whatsoever. I'd say South Windsor would be roughly halfway between New Britain and Springfield? (Hard to say for sure, since I-91 and Amtrak don't go through that town!)
Quote from: kphoger on November 19, 2019, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 18, 2019, 11:15:44 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 01:59:24 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 17, 2019, 03:29:12 PM
I think we need terrestrial TV. I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio. If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back. I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.
* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.
* All TV signals are "streamed". The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter. The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.
No. When I say "streaming," I am referring to Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV+, Disney+, HBO+ and things like that, not linear OTA broadcasts. They are not the same thing.
So what do consider IPTV to be? Streaming or not streaming?
Still streaming. If it doesn't come off an antenna and comes through the Internet, it's streaming. My experience with Internet TV is that it's not as reliable. I have 200+MB internet, and streaming is still filled with errors and buffering issues.
I still don't see a problem with having (and using) a
totally free service, which is where this thread started. I also believe that any service that has a "+" in the name is a minus for me.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: renegade on November 19, 2019, 03:32:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 19, 2019, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 18, 2019, 11:15:44 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 01:59:24 PM
Quote from: renegade on November 17, 2019, 03:29:12 PM
I think we need terrestrial TV. I'm watching it right now. It's a totally free service, courtesy of We The People, as it should be, just like radio. If you want to pay for cable or satellite, that's perfectly fine, but if we let terrestrial TV go away, we're never going to be able to get it back. I remain skeptical about streaming as an alternative.
* This is true so long as private companies decide to own and operate stations.
* All TV signals are "streamed". The program feed leaves master control on a microwave uplink or on a fibre line to the transmitter. The only difference is that microwave connections are circuit-switched and a fibre signal is packet-switched.
No. When I say "streaming," I am referring to Netflix, Hulu, AppleTV+, Disney+, HBO+ and things like that, not linear OTA broadcasts. They are not the same thing.
So what do consider IPTV to be? Streaming or not streaming?
Still streaming. If it doesn't come off an antenna and comes through the Internet, it's streaming. My experience with Internet TV is that it's not as reliable. I have 200+MB internet, and streaming is still filled with errors and buffering issues.
I still don't see a problem with having (and using) a totally free service, which is where this thread started. I also believe that any service that has a "+" in the name is a minus for me.
Just my two cents.
The reason I asked is that it's kind of a fine line between the two, and not necessarily commonsense. For example, Contour service from Cox has two very similar options (among many):
1. Have one wired host box and one or more wired client boxes elsewhere in the house. The host box gets its information from the coax outlet, which gets its information from the coax drop running to your house from the mainline. The client boxes get their information from the host box over your house's coax wiring by way of DSG tunneling (two-way multimedia traffic over coax lines). This is how "normal" whole-home cable works.
2. Have one wired DOCSIS 3.1 Panoramic gateway modem and one or more wired client boxes elsewhere in the house. The modem gets its information from the coax outlet, which gets its information from the coax drop running to your house from the mainline. The client boxes get their information from the modem over your house's coax wiring by way of DSG tunneling (two-way multimedia traffic over coax lines). This is how IPTV whole-home cable works if you don't have wireless boxes.
The only difference between those two options is that #1 has a cable box as the host while #2 has a modem as the host. But, either way, it's coax all the way from the mainline to your TV in the other room, and it's the same channels and same programming either way. (
Edited to add: In fact, the exact same model of client box can be used in either scenario.) It seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to make–that #1 is "streaming" but #2 is not.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 19, 2019, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on November 18, 2019, 07:41:54 PM
I've received both Hartford and Springfield stations from South Windsor. With the right antenna it's not too difficult.
I received WGGB-TV (ABC) channel 40 a grand total of ONCE in New Britain. I never received channel 22 (NBC) or 57 (PBS) in the Hardware City's south end whatsoever. I'd say South Windsor would be roughly halfway between New Britain and Springfield? (Hard to say for sure, since I-91 and Amtrak don't go through that town!)
In Southington, none of the Springfield stations come in. If any were to, it would be WWLP, whose transmitter is on Provin Mountain in Feeding Hills, about 5 miles north of the CT/MA border. I do, however, get Channel 8 and 59 fairly well. At the office in Windsor (which I would say is halfway between New Britain and Springfield), the antenna we have only picks up 3, 19, 20, 24/65, 26, 30, and 61. None of the Springfield stations come in. WGBY is available on cable north of New Haven, and only Cox in Enfield carries WGGB.
I cut cable and use a 4K over the air antenna to grab all the local news and over the air channels. Works great!
Incidentally, reception got even worse a couple months ago when all the stations had to switch frequencies. I had just gotten a new TV, which worked great before then. When the stations switched, I lost half the stations.
Quote from: ET21 on November 20, 2019, 09:38:50 AM
I cut cable and use a 4K over the air antenna to grab all the local news and over the air channels. Works great!
Except that there is no OTA broadcasting in 4K in the United States.
Reception is bad during rain/snow storms, but overall, I don't miss shucking out $100+/month for cable. We have 40+ channels at last count, although home shopping channels could go away.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 20, 2019, 10:00:37 AM
Incidentally, reception got even worse a couple months ago when all the stations had to switch frequencies. I had just gotten a new TV, which worked great before then. When the stations switched, I lost half the stations.
There's a lot of work involved in TV stations changing frequencies (the TV Repack), and some stations have to operate on reduced power temporarily. The stations you may be missing should return to full power in the coming weeks, and should return.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 20, 2019, 10:00:37 AM
Incidentally, reception got even worse a couple months ago when all the stations had to switch frequencies. I had just gotten a new TV, which worked great before then. When the stations switched, I lost half the stations.
Oddly enough, I had the opposite experience. Of course, my reception of high-band UHF was always spotty at best (it ranged from "significant re-positioning of the antenna" in winter to "don't even bother trying to watch" in summer), so I'm more than happy it's essentially gone here. A lot of stations went from unreliable/not able to watch at all to loud and clear.
On the other hand, I get our low VHF station, which has a reputation for being hard to receive (to the point that CBS is both channel 6.1 and 45.3), just fine.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 20, 2019, 10:00:37 AM
Incidentally, reception got even worse a couple months ago when all the stations had to switch frequencies. I had just gotten a new TV, which worked great before then. When the stations switched, I lost half the stations.
Quote from: vdeane on November 20, 2019, 01:38:35 PM
I had the opposite experience.
Different antennas and different antenna positions work better for different frequencies. I suspect that, if the two of you swapped antennas, you'd likely also swap experiences.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 20, 2019, 10:00:37 AM
Incidentally, reception got even worse a couple months ago when all the stations had to switch frequencies. I had just gotten a new TV, which worked great before then. When the stations switched, I lost half the stations.
I really didn't notice a difference, except that one station (WFSB) reduces power for about a month before the repack, then it was back to normal once the repack took place. I actually gained 6 stations because WHPX moved its transmitter from Montville (about 40 miles from me) to Rattlesnake Mountain in Farmington (about 7 miles from me).
Quote from: kphoger on November 20, 2019, 04:39:27 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on November 20, 2019, 10:00:37 AM
Incidentally, reception got even worse a couple months ago when all the stations had to switch frequencies. I had just gotten a new TV, which worked great before then. When the stations switched, I lost half the stations.
Quote from: vdeane on November 20, 2019, 01:38:35 PM
I had the opposite experience.
Different antennas and different antenna positions work better for different frequencies. I suspect that, if the two of you swapped antennas, you'd likely also swap experiences.
It's worth noting that I live in a ground floor apartment very prone to multipath interference. High band UHF won't reach my apartment with reliability no matter what. I even talked to an antenna salesman once and they basically said that the antenna I have now is the best I can do (actually, they were amazed I could pick up anything at all). They said the only antenna they had that would even otherwise match what I could pick up would cause me to lose CBS.
For those in greater Hartford: "Channel 19" is actually WVIT-TV channel 30-3, but with the TV displaying "19-1" for Telemundo (and then "19-2", really 30-4, for Telexitos). Similar happens with WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 of New Haven carrying WCTX-TV (MY) channel 59 on 8-3, with the TV displaying "59-1".
With a good pointable outdoor antenna you can get stations 50 to 70 miles away and clearly.
Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 05:14:27 PM
With a good pointable outdoor antenna you can get stations 50 to 70 miles away and clearly.
My great-grandma, who lived near Onekama, MI, had a pointable outdoor antenna aimed east at the locals. She could get the entire set of local stations pointed that way as well as a duplicate PBS off the side. In the analog days, NBC was 20-25 miles east, CBS/FOX/PBS were 40-45 miles ESE, and ABC was 60 miles ENE (the second PBS was 20 miles SSW). In the digital era, there is a good chance a similar antenna could get all the locals, despite NBC and PBS relocating to the same tower as the ABC (NBC and ABC are co-owned in the market and placed a translator with NBC on .1 and ABC on .2 where NBC's analog signal broadcast from)
I had to look it up, as I have never heard of it.
https://goo.gl/maps/evDL4U1gAVX7xDhK8
With more and more content that would usually be watched using a TV being available in the Internet, I don't see why I still have a cable TV subscription. My parents watch FOX on it and that's about it. I personally think a subscription to a service like HULU would serve me better.