Death of OTA Broadcasting

"numeric" wrote in message
...

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else can
you buy for this price?


I recently purchased a new 61 inch 1080p HDTV with the money I saved over
the last five years, by NOT subscribing to cable or satellite. That's a
better deal then 300 low resolution cable channels and nothing to watch.

There aren't many stations right now but once the mandate date is past there
will be plenty enough.

I do not even watch that much TV anyway. My Wife is the TV addict. I have
already told her to kiss cable goodbye if she want's to retire.

"Gonzo" wrote:

I do not even watch that much TV anyway. My Wife is the TV addict. I have
already told her to kiss cable goodbye if she want's to retire.

I don't even HAVE a TV right now and frankly have
missed it that much

I sold my BIG 36" tube TV in anticipation of living in
an RV (yet to come)

However.... I may buy a small LCD TV soon as winter
sets in even if I haven't done the RV thing. I mainly
miss not being able to watch DVD movies but I could do
that on my laptop I suppose

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:49:30 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
a...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month. Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?

I understand it perfectly well.

What does this mean?


How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisements as well.

Is this OTA or cable/satellite?
Thumper

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:49:30 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
news:[email protected] ca...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like
you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people
get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for
300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What
else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not
made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension
skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?

I understand it perfectly well.

What does this mean?


How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisements as well.

Is this OTA or cable/satellite?
Thumper

It's very simple Thumper. You have a knack for taking something simple and
making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Let me try to explain it too you again:

In the 70s OTA was paid for by the advertisers and not by the consumer.

In the 80s we all flocked over to Cable and we became the monetary
supporters of it.

My comment is simply trying to convey the fact that I find it ironic that
even though we are paying for cable and satellite, we are still force fed
advertisements.

In other words the broadcasters are getting the best of both worlds and we
are paying for it. This is one of the reasons (besides monetary) that I
will go OTA only. It's a matter of pricinpal.

Do you understand now?

"Gonzo" writes:

Now we have to pay for TV and we are still force fed advertisments
as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too.

Amen, brother! I second that.

This will however change in the digital age.

Huh? I only see it getting worse. As more and more
lawyers get involved and DRM gets more entrenched,
our options get smaller.
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
"Gonzo" writes:

Now we have to pay for TV and we are still force fed advertisments
as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too.

Amen, brother! I second that.

This will however change in the digital age.

Huh? I only see it getting worse. As more and more
lawyers get involved and DRM gets more entrenched,
our options get smaller.

Well the entire idea behind the Government mandate is to give the air back
to the people who are paying the taxes and curbing the power of the
monopolisitic broadcasting system we have now.

You may very well be right though. Regardless, I will refuse cable and
satelite and I will NOT pay for advertisement funded TV no mater what comes.

I will be watching this closely for the next six or so years. Im not
retiring just yet.

"Gonzo" wrote:

You may very well be right though. Regardless, I will refuse cable and
satelite and I will NOT pay for advertisement funded TV no mater what comes.

Amen

Same here

If I can get OTA broadcast then I just wont have ANY TV

Being an OTA fan for 50+ years, I am sad to say that I will be forced into
cable in 2009. I'm sure that there are thousands like me in the Pacific
Northwest that are in the same boat. We have put up 30+ foot high gain hdtv
antennas and gone to extreme lengths to get the new OTA digital broadcasts
only to find that a little wind in the trees and it is gone. We wait for
winter for the trees to shed so we can get better reception. We switch to
the NTSC channels for relief, knowing that those will be going away in a
couple of years. We are resolved to the fact that a high percentage of
folks will be forced onto cable or satelite in 2009 and we are a part of
those. Who won? The cable companies. Maybe we will put our $60 a month
into DVD's or Blue Ray..........(:}

Jim

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:37:20 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:49:30 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
news:[email protected] .ca...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like
you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people
get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for
300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What
else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not
made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension
skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?

I understand it perfectly well.

What does this mean?


How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisements as well.

Is this OTA or cable/satellite?
Thumper

It's very simple Thumper. You have a knack for taking something simple and
making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Let me try to explain it too you again:

In the 70s OTA was paid for by the advertisers and not by the consumer.


It still is.
In the 80s we all flocked over to Cable and we became the monetary
supporters of it.


My comment is simply trying to convey the fact that I find it ironic that
even though we are paying for cable and satellite, we are still force fed
advertisements.


WE are force fed nothing. What we pay for is a different delivery of
signals to the home plus more channels that one cannot receive OTA.
OTA and Cable/satellite are not the same product.


In other words the broadcasters are getting the best of both worlds and we
are paying for it. This is one of the reasons (besides monetary) that I
will go OTA only. It's a matter of pricinpal.


Principle? Do what you want but falsely claiming that you are being
force fed commercials is laughable.

Do you understand now?

Yes it's just as I said in the first place.
Thumper

"Jim L" wrote:

We have put up 30+ foot high gain hdtv
antennas and gone to extreme lengths to get the new OTA digital broadcasts
only to find that a little wind in the trees and it is gone. We wait for
winter for the trees to shed so we can get better reception. We switch to
the NTSC channels

Are OTA digital channels THAT picky abt signal?

You believe that analog OTA signals are much more
robust in that they are more reliable as far as
reception?