Is OTA being forced into an early grave?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by TeamPace, Mar 25, 2016.

  1. Mar 27, 2016 #41 of 118
    TonyD79

    TonyD79 Well-Known Member

    12,405
    1,806
    Jan 4, 2002
    Columbia, MD

    Advertisements

    Not if you became a cable company and signed contracts as such. Areo tied to side step. That's what got them done.
     
  2. Mar 27, 2016 #42 of 118
    Bigg

    Bigg Cord Cutter

    7,357
    793
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    There is an exemption for shared access non-profit antenna systems in apartment buildings/complexes.

    Point missed. It's about the content. Most people who watch TV watch shows across cable and broadcast. A lot of people just don't watch TV anymore. They get no money for must carry, but most networks are retransmission consent. Typically only PBS is must carry. They also pay big bucks for Primetime and football.

    You can usually get something out of Comcast. Having an overbuilder or telcoTV option helps a lot too.
     
  3. Mar 27, 2016 #43 of 118
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot New Member

    1,200
    1
    Jan 7, 2016
    Those 30% of all DMAs only make up 22% of the US Households.
     
  4. Mar 27, 2016 #44 of 118
    TeamPace

    TeamPace Active Member

    443
    108
    Oct 22, 2013
    Ohio
    There is definitely a segment of "cord nevers" who mostly stream content. But many of them are just at a point in their lives that regular TV viewing isn't that important to them, and convenience is more important. But those tastes are likely to change over time as that population ages and has families.

    You also are likely in the minority in that you watch more "non network" content. TiVo notes that something like 80% of the most recorded shows are network shows.

    I also find many people don't really know what is available via OTA today. Either they have just never had much exposure to OTA or if they have it was from the pre-digital days when you had the choice of maybe 6 or 8 channels that were snowy or full of ghosting. Not really very useable or desirable. I find people are very surprised when they see I receive 50 channels via a nice TiVo interface with picture quality that exceeds what they get from cable. But I think that is all the more reason digital television should be left alone for long enough for the general population to rediscover it. If you consider the initial year or two after the conversion was pretty transitional with converter boxes and a lot of confusion. So we have only had maybe 4 solid years post conversion for the public to consider OTA. It won't be nearly enough for many people but I think given the opportunity it will continue to grow to a respectable number of homes. I even propose there could even be the potential for new broadcast stations if the demand is there.

    And yes on occasion cable offers some bundles where they may claim to offer TV for $20 per month, but most of the time that is the bare minimum channels which is usually less than whats available for free OTA. The numbers I see say the average price for cable TV is around $87 per month and continuing to rise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2016
  5. Mar 27, 2016 #45 of 118
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot New Member

    1,200
    1
    Jan 7, 2016

    Advertisements

    TIVO Research (and Nielsen) show that very few watch TV that is not live, and skip commercials, which if one thinks about it, the CFO, now acting CEO as well as RoVi could look at and see no big fallout to abandoning SkipMode.

    Certainly you jest.

    First, many OTA Stations are going away and as stated, TV needs a dual revenue structure to survive now. Otherwise, there will be nothing you want to see OTA.
     
  6. Mar 27, 2016 #46 of 118
    TeamPace

    TeamPace Active Member

    443
    108
    Oct 22, 2013
    Ohio
    Yeah, I realize new stations are not going to happen with things where they are today. But my point was it could have been very different if digital OTA TV gotten a much earlier start, better promotion, etc. Undoubtedly I'm probably in the minority here but I just think digital OTA has much greater potential than has been realized. Just an opinion. And doesn't OTA actually have a dual revenue stream now? Advertising dollars and rebroadcast fees? I'm not suggesting that cable would or should ever go away but it could have had to compete more with OTA under a little different scenario in how things have developed.
     
  7. Mar 27, 2016 #47 of 118
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot New Member

    1,200
    1
    Jan 7, 2016
    You do not pay retransmission for OTA and you want them to promote OTA?

    Really?

    You can blame cable companies for creating the scenario.
     
  8. Mar 27, 2016 #48 of 118
    Bigg

    Bigg Cord Cutter

    7,357
    793
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    True, but I don't think that will cause a swell in OTA usage. I think that will drive people to cable/satellite. Or not, if they are just used to not having it.

    Where did you get that statistic from? That sounds ridiculously high considering how much content there is on non-network platforms, and how low the quality is of a lot of the network stuff.

    The 50 channels thing is exactly the same claim that the cable and satellite providers use to claim you get 400 channels. Yeah, 50 channels, and 45 of them are junk that almost no one wants. Just like cable where 350+ of the 400 are junk that nobody wants. You're still getting WAY more on cable.

    It's not that the TV is really that cheap, it's just that they gouge you for internet if you don't bundle. It's illegal and anti-competitive, but that's what at least Comcast does. Some other cable providers are better about it though, especially the smaller ones that don't make much money on TV due to high programming costs.

    A lot of the high quality content has already moved off of OTA and onto cable channels, although I'm surprised that more hasn't followed suit. At some point, OTA channels may exist just as local news and low-quality syndicated content, with everything that anyone wants on pay tv.
     
  9. Mar 28, 2016 #49 of 118
    TeamPace

    TeamPace Active Member

    443
    108
    Oct 22, 2013
    Ohio
    I have seen that quote from TiVo on more than one occasion, mostly in marketing for their OTA model when it was available. However just Google "most watched TV shows". I just did and the list I found only had about two cable TV shows in the top 30 most watched shows.

    That's true on both accounts. But I do find that I tend to have access to the majority of the most popular shows with OTA. I'm not arguing that there isn't value and much more choice by having pay TV. I'm just making the point that there is plenty of entertainment available for free via OTA. It's simply a choice on how you want to spend your money. For many cable is well worth the cost. One case is sports junkies. There just isn't a better option for the maximum amount of sports than pay TV.

    I'm paying $45 for standard internet through Time Warner. Friends of mine with the same internet plus basic digital cable (no premium channels) are paying $161 per month.
     
  10. Mar 28, 2016 #50 of 118
    neurocutie

    neurocutie New Member

    25
    1
    Mar 13, 2016
    yes but it won't be long before you'll have to add at least $30/mo to that $45/mo if you plan on stream-watching anything (Netflix, Hulu, etc)... especially after the TWC/Charter merger happens.

    As for now, I'll bet your $160/mo friends *could* knock down their monthlies to about $120/mo with a little pressure and negotiation... (I did: TWC standard Internet + standard cable TV for $110 including 1 set top box and 2 Tivo/CC's).
     
  11. Mar 28, 2016 #51 of 118
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,289
    1,165
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    WHy would that be illegal? Paying less for an item in a bundle and more for an individual item is nothing new. And it certainly is not illegal. Plus it is the norm. Most cable companies do it.
     
  12. Mar 28, 2016 #52 of 118
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    1,043
    126
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Huh? Because of data caps? Does Charter cap? I am so glad I won't have to go through that.
     
  13. Mar 28, 2016 #53 of 118
    tenthplanet

    tenthplanet Well-Known Member

    1,597
    477
    Mar 5, 2004
    OTA is living on borrowed time, digital gave it that. Anyone remember what analog (aka ghost city) looked like, I had to watch TV that way before the cable company could come out once. After the the 5 major networks and PBS there is no original content, there are stations with 10 sd subchannels, I hate to say it but when the boomers die off, OTA will probably go with it, if it lasts that long. Will I have to pay more if I can't pull the free signals out of air, well...wait now I have all this devices to record said signals and I pay taxes. Explain the free part to me???
     
  14. Mar 28, 2016 #54 of 118
    zalusky

    zalusky Well-Known Member TCF Club

    8,676
    1,221
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
    I think this whole thing is a misdirect. OTA is just a technology and one that is limited.
    Even the networks have less interest in them because you cannot measure as easily or go interactive.

    The real issue that some people want to go OTA is money. If thats the case just get lifeline service from your cable company.

    I do see many other providers on the horizon whether it be more streaming services or cell provided services but the simple answer is they are all going to cost unless you go with the lifeline service.

    I would bet all the OTA are still paying for their high speed service.
     
  15. Mar 28, 2016 #55 of 118
    Wil

    Wil Unknown Member

    4,717
    267
    Sep 26, 2002
    Lifeline cable service is largely a pre-Clinton (the male) concept.
     
  16. Mar 28, 2016 #56 of 118
    JoeKustra

    JoeKustra in the other Alabama TCF Club

    19,859
    3,627
    Dec 7, 2012
    Ashland, PA...
    I'm not sure what you mean, but it's $20/month from my cable feed. My mother has POTS for $24 a month also.
     
  17. Mar 28, 2016 #57 of 118
    Wil

    Wil Unknown Member

    4,717
    267
    Sep 26, 2002
    When cable was regulated it was $7-$12 and nearly universal. Last time I checked my provider it was about $40 in a city where a bent coat hanger antenna would get you about 25 channels including some nice retros you can't get from cable at any price.
     
  18. Mar 28, 2016 #58 of 118
    wizbang_fl

    wizbang_fl Smile and Wave Boys, Smile and Wave

    10
    0
    Jan 2, 2012
    Fort...
    Cable and Internet are all well and good until you have a major storm (Hurricane, Blizzard, Ice Storm) The last hurricane we had in Florida (Wilma) had power out 2 weeks and cable out over a month. We had a generator and thanks to a Tivo box, (I was able to setup a dongle on my mobile phone to do a sync to tivo) and OTA antenna we could keep in touch with the outside world. With all the dependence on internet and cable service providers they are becoming the center of too many services.
     
  19. Mar 28, 2016 #59 of 118
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,289
    1,165
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Analog OTA looked great if you had the proper antenna for your location. We watched it in the 70's and my GF had it until the digital transition. There was no ghosting to worry about if things were setup properly.
     
  20. Mar 28, 2016 #60 of 118
    wizwor

    wizwor Active Member

    960
    243
    Dec 17, 2013
    I suppose that is true. When I worked for a cable company, we have a box on every television and all channels enabled including PPV. I would never have considered an antenna at that time. I did not, however, consider an antenna when I was paying for cable either. Then I moved into a new development and the cable company wanted $5k to run cable to my house. We got an antenna. By the time my kids were approaching school age, my street was cabled and we were being inundated with promotions. I succumbed to peer pressure and subscribed. After a couple years of snowy channels and frequent outages, we switched to Dish. So that was not about money. When my Dish + internet + local phone + local long distance + long distance + HD topped $220/month, we consolidated with a cable bundle. That was about money and convenience. When the cable company switched to digital and wanted a monthly fee for my analog televisions then moved the good programming (like HD local channels) to a frequency that required a box to tune then I switched back to an antenna. It was a little about money but it was a lot about F* Comcast. Since then, I have used about half my savings to buy antennas, DVRs, and other toys. Now I have a DVR on every television. For me to replicate the functionality of my current infrastructure with my cable company would cost more than $200/month. So, now it's a bit about money and even more about quality of service.

    I do pay for high speed internet. My in-laws do not. My brother in law pays for DSL. I could get rid of my high speed internet and get my internet service via my mobile provider, but I'm only paying $45/month and that rate is guaranteed for life. So, I guess that is about money too. On the other hand, except for my TiVos, I do not actually need high speed internet at all.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements