Your digital TV could soon stop working.

[hardcorestitch]

Money

When the channels determine that the DRM baked into 3.0 will make them more money than remaining on 1.0, they will turn off 1.0.

Or the FCC will receive enough “donations” aka bribes to schedule a mandatory switch date.

I think 2028 is believable.

Corporations are a platypus.

 

[sam_gordon]

Money

When the channels determine that the DRM baked into 3.0 will make them more money than remaining on 1.0, they will turn off 1.0.

Or the FCC will receive enough “donations” aka bribes to schedule a mandatory switch date.

I think 2028 is believable.

Assuming only 20% of HH utilize OTA, and that people will forgo OTA if they have to pay for it (because they can get it other ways), I don't think it's going to be as much a cash cow.

Just my opinion, but while I saw a drastic increase in quality when going from analog to digital, I don't think the quality difference between 1.0 & 3.0 are as noticeable.

 

[kdonnel]

Just my opinion, but while I saw a drastic increase in quality when going from analog to digital, I don't think the quality difference between 1.0 & 3.0 are as noticeable.

Don't underestimate the gullibility/stupidity of the average consumer.

We have to have the best!

Why would I watch ATSC 1.0 1080i on my 75 inch 4k TV when I could be watching glorious 2160p from an ATSC 3.0 signal?

Forget the fact that I am sitting 12 feet from my TV and can not physically discern the difference using my human eye, my human brain knows it is better so I have to have it!

 

[sam_gordon]

Don't underestimate the gullibility/stupidity of the average consumer.

We have to have the best!

Why would I watch ATSC 1.0 1080i on my 75 inch 4k TV when I could be watching glorious 2160p from an ATSC 3.0 signal?

Forget the fact that I am sitting 12 feet from my TV and can not physically discern the difference using my human eye, my human brain knows it is better so I have to have it!

This is true!

 

[irlandaise]

What is the main driver behind people still watching OTA broadcasts?

Is it cost? People don't want to or can't afford to pay for a streaming service?

Is it technophobia? People who have watched TV the same way for decades and are not going to change?

Something else?

I don't know whether there's one "main driver," but in our case, it's picture quality. Nothing on cable or streaming can compare to a direct over-the-air signal. It's great not only for sports and other live events, but also for getting maximum enjoyment from the beautiful photography on "Masterpiece" and other shows.

 

[firefly_ris]

What is the main driver behind people still watching OTA broadcasts?

Is it cost? People don't want to or can't afford to pay for a streaming service?

Is it technophobia? People who have watched TV the same way for decades and are not going to change?

Something else?

With about 132 million US households I am just amazed that 26 million are watching OTA on a regular basis.

Other than cost, which admittedly is a good reason, streaming with a cloud based DVR is so superior over any OTA DVR device.

I remember back to when I was recording OTA. It was during the birth of HD OTA broadcasts and I had a ATSC card in a computer and some software that got an online guide so I could schedule recordings not just by time but also by show, emulating a TiVo but in HD long before TiVo supported HD.

It was a pain.

Football season meant recordings were often wrong on CBS and FOX and despite having a large antenna I still would suffer through reception issues. I also had to manage storage space, often having to discard movies I had recorded to make way for new prime time TV shows. The software was buggy and required a great deal of baby sitting to make sure it was actually going to record.

Streaming solves those issues and so many more.

Cloud based DVR often get real time schedule updates and record correctly even when sports runs over or you have the option to watch the on demand version if your requested recording is messed up in some way.

The streaming services often receive the OTA via a fiber link and not an OTA antenna, greatly minimizing reception issues.

And you generally never have to worry about running out of space and can record as much as you want with streaming services.

I have never paid for cable TV in my entire adult life. I moved out of my parents' home in 2006 and have always had an antenna and that's it. I don't watch a lot of TV to begin with. My parents until just a few years ago were still paying for Comcast cable TV at nearly $300 per month for 320 channels of nonsense. That money is way better spent practically anywhere else for me. My monthly cable internet cost has gone up a lot unfortunately, but I live rurally and there are not a lot of other options besides Starlink which is currently the more expensive of my 2 options. So that just is what it is for now.

I don't have a need or desire to record anything on broadcast TV. If I miss a show, I miss it, who cares?

We do have Hulu/Disney/ESPN+ for a streaming service, but the price is getting really high when really breaking down how often we actually use it, so I'm considering ditching that too.

We're more of a movie household and I run a Plex server for that.

 

[MillauFr]

I just get blocks when I tried using an antenna. It was junk. I just use YouTube Premium at $14 a month. No commercials.

 

[sam_gordon]

I just get blocks when I tried using an antenna. It was junk. I just use YouTube Premium at $14 a month. No commercials.

OTA reception is/can be as much art as science. Type of antenna, distance to transmitter, topography between the two are just some of the issues that affect reception.

If you're watching your local stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc), yes, you're getting commercials. Heck, if you're watching "cable channels" (HGTV, ESPN, Lifetime, etc) you're getting commercials.

 

[disneychrista]

Will this make it easier or harder to get TV in rural areas or those in Valley's where the signals are blocked by mountains?

 

[hardcorestitch]

OTA reception is/can be as much art as science. Type of antenna, distance to transmitter, topography between the two are just some of the issues that affect reception.

If you're watching your local stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc), yes, you're getting commercials. Heck, if you're watching "cable channels" (HGTV, ESPN, Lifetime, etc) you're getting commercials.

At least Disney Channel’s ads aren’t so much ads and that they’re shorter. Mostly promos at other times.

 

[sam_gordon]

At least Disney Channel’s ads aren’t so much ads and that they’re shorter. Mostly promos at other times.

If most of them are promos, that's not a good thing. That means they couldn't sell the ad time. While yes, broadcasters will dedicate some time to promos, it's a smaller percentage.

 

[hardcorestitch]

If most of them are promos, that's not a good thing. That means they couldn't sell the ad time. While yes, broadcasters will dedicate some time to promos, it's a smaller percentage.

Actually Disney Channel has roots as a premium channel. They went basic by the late 90s.

 

[sam_gordon]

Actually Disney Channel has roots as a premium channel. They went basic by the late 90s.

OK? So they've been "basic" for 30+ years. It still stands that if they're airing a lot of promos, they're not selling a lot of ad time.

 

[kdonnel]

Will this make it easier or harder to get TV in rural areas or those in Valley's where the signals are blocked by mountains?

It might make it better?

One of the changes is to a more robust COFDM modulation which should have the side effect of improving reception for mobile devices and in challenging signal environments.

 

[kdonnel]

OK? So they've been "basic" for 30+ years. It still stands that if they're airing a lot of promos, they're not selling a lot of ad time.

I remember watching a lot of Disney Channel when my kids were little.

I distinctly remember one summer where they were running promos for the prior summer. Would have been 2005-2007, somewhere in there.

Not only were they not selling a lot of ad time, they had not even invested in creating promos for the current year and were using promos from the prior year that mentioned the prior year in the promos! The year was prominently featured in the text on the screen and in the words spoken in the promos.

I remember wondering if Disney Channel was going to make it.

 

[BrianL]

OK? So they've been "basic" for 30+ years. It still stands that if they're airing a lot of promos, they're not selling a lot of ad time.

Disney Channel has generally not sold traditional ad time though. It has always mostly been in-house promos with some sponsor spots that are not traditional commercials. It's the, "Whatever Company is a proud sponsor of Disney Channel." It's kind of like PBS. Now on XD, they just air wahtever, but Disney Channel is a little walled off. Now, I couldn't tell you if they are selling enough of that sponsorship or what have you, but they do operate a bit differently than most channels regardless.

 

[tvguy]

What is the main driver behind people still watching OTA broadcasts?

Is it cost? People don't want to or can't afford to pay for a streaming service?

Is it technophobia? People who have watched TV the same way for decades and are not going to change?

Something else?

With about 132 million US households I am just amazed that 26 million are watching OTA on a regular basis.

Other than cost, which admittedly is a good reason, streaming with a cloud based DVR is so superior over any OTA DVR device.

I remember back to when I was recording OTA. It was during the birth of HD OTA broadcasts and I had a ATSC card in a computer and some software that got an online guide so I could schedule recordings not just by time but also by show, emulating a TiVo but in HD long before TiVo supported HD.

It was a pain.

Football season meant recordings were often wrong on CBS and FOX and despite having a large antenna I still would suffer through reception issues. I also had to manage storage space, often having to discard movies I had recorded to make way for new prime time TV shows. The software was buggy and required a great deal of baby sitting to make sure it was actually going to record.

Streaming solves those issues and so many more.

Cloud based DVR often get real time schedule updates and record correctly even when sports runs over or you have the option to watch the on demand version if your requested recording is messed up in some way.

The streaming services often receive the OTA via a fiber link and not an OTA antenna, greatly minimizing reception issues.

And you generally never have to worry about running out of space and can record as much as you want with streaming services.

As others have stated, cost IS a factor. And the maze that is streaming service is not only expensive, but you sign up with a service to get specific programing, and then they either drop it, or in the case of sports programing, you have to sign up and pay for multiple services to see all the games.
I live in the last major metro area to get cable TV. They didn't even START wiring Sacramento until 1986. If you had told me I would ever PAY to watch TV 40 years ago, I would have said you are crazy. I had a new roof put on 12 years ago and taking down my 20 foot antenna was the biggest mistake I made. There is a lot of programming OTA that is not available on cable or satellite or streaming. Most of viewing is off Dish, but I wish I had a better antenna setup so I COULD watch more OTA. The station I retired from still hasn't recovered from the digital switch. We lost about 20% of our viewers because the digital signal does not carry as far as the analog signal did. THAT is because we stayed on a VHS channel. Most stations switched to a UHF virtual channel. Tech experts said technology would improve digital on VHF and that has NOT happened. They finally put in a UHF translator to try and fix the issue because we couldn't get our signal at the station, because our VHF transmitter is 30 miles away.