is OTA TV doomed?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:13:47 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:59:30 -0400, Thumper wrote:

Not to mention that comcast HD picture is just fine.

While it may be just fine for you, it isn't as good as OTA, and the
reports I've seen from people that had both and compared them said OTA was
much better than the cable HD. IOW's it's a noticable difference.

I have both and Comcast delivers just as good a signal on the FEW OTA
signals available to me.
Thumper

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:42:19 -0500, wrote:

I will never go back to cable

I will always get OTA TV....even HD TV



I suspect your opinion has much to with cost.
Thumper

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:48:55 -0400, Thumper wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:42:19 -0500, wrote:

I will never go back to cable

I will always get OTA TV....even HD TV

I suspect your opinion has much to with cost.

Not cost, but cost effectiveness. I pay $40 a month for fios internet
service. Why? because I get 7 times faster service than I did with DSL at
$14.95 month. What would i get with cable/sat? Nothing but being able to
say I get so many hundred channels that i wouldn't watch much on anyway.
I'm also not in condition mount antennas on the roof, but I did pay a
local 20 year old kid $50 to do it to my specs. Took him a couple of
hours, he was happy. I was happy. Offered him a 144hr Tivo instead. He
took the cash.:-) just because someone doesn't want cable doesn't mean
they can't afford it. I assure you I could prepay it for the rest of my
life and not even notice the loss. But I also don't waste money, and it
would be a waste IMO. I can't say I'll never go back to cale though. I can
say I've never had it and never will. Why?

[[email protected] ~]$ ls /mnt/video/*.mpg
/mnt/video/1041_20060828130114.mpg /mnt/video/1111_20060828110000.mpg
/mnt/video/1051_20060828023000.mpg /mnt/video/1211_20060827190000.mpg
/mnt/video/1051_20060828032800.mpg /mnt/video/1331_20060826140000.mpg
/mnt/video/1052_20060828131608.mpg /mnt/video/1331_20060827020000.mpg
/mnt/video/1111_20060827190000.mpg /mnt/video/1682_20060828020000.mpg
/mnt/video/1111_20060828100000.mpg /mnt/video/1682_20060828130851.mpg
[[email protected] ~]$

As you can see (look at dates in filename) I've programs recorded from 2
ago i haven't watched yet. And this is the off season. When the new shows
start up in the fall, I get very selective on what I record, otherwise I'd
have over 20 hours a day of TV to watch just from OTA. So, you tell me why
I should pay for cable/sat.:-)

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:50:06 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:48:55 -0400, Thumper wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:42:19 -0500, wrote:

I will never go back to cable

I will always get OTA TV....even HD TV

I suspect your opinion has much to with cost.

Not cost, but cost effectiveness. I pay $40 a month for fios internet
service. Why? because I get 7 times faster service than I did with DSL at
$14.95 month. What would i get with cable/sat? Nothing but being able to
say I get so many hundred channels that i wouldn't watch much on anyway.
I'm also not in condition mount antennas on the roof, but I did pay a
local 20 year old kid $50 to do it to my specs. Took him a couple of
hours, he was happy. I was happy. Offered him a 144hr Tivo instead. He
took the cash.:-) just because someone doesn't want cable doesn't mean
they can't afford it. I assure you I could prepay it for the rest of my
life and not even notice the loss. But I also don't waste money, and it
would be a waste IMO. I can't say I'll never go back to cale though. I can
say I've never had it and never will. Why?

[[email protected] ~]$ ls /mnt/video/*.mpg
/mnt/video/1041_20060828130114.mpg /mnt/video/1111_20060828110000.mpg
/mnt/video/1051_20060828023000.mpg /mnt/video/1211_20060827190000.mpg
/mnt/video/1051_20060828032800.mpg /mnt/video/1331_20060826140000.mpg
/mnt/video/1052_20060828131608.mpg /mnt/video/1331_20060827020000.mpg
/mnt/video/1111_20060827190000.mpg /mnt/video/1682_20060828020000.mpg
/mnt/video/1111_20060828100000.mpg /mnt/video/1682_20060828130851.mpg
[[email protected] ~]$

As you can see (look at dates in filename) I've programs recorded from 2
ago i haven't watched yet. And this is the off season. When the new shows
start up in the fall, I get very selective on what I record, otherwise I'd
have over 20 hours a day of TV to watch just from OTA. So, you tell me why
I should pay for cable/sat.:-)


No one said you should. I'm just tired of the people who keep
belittling Cable and Satellite when it provides a very good product
for most of us. Many of us do watch more tv than you and like a
broader selection than you. I have both and in my situation Comcast
actually comes in at least as good and most times better. I also can
only get 4 OTA channels. I also watch a lot of premium channels as do
a good segment of society. It's enough to say that cable/satellite
gives you more than you need without claiming that it's a better
signal. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Comcast in some
adjacent communities has inferior reception but it really depends on
where in the upgrade picture lies the one of hundreds of individual
companies that now make up comcast. I happen to have a great picture.

Thumper

Wes Newell wrote:

fios internet

what is fios Internet?

Wes Newell wrote:

fios internet

Fiber optic to the door, right?

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

(a prime example of the "more is better" mentality. Matthew, are you
listening? Probably not--you'd be loathe to admit that the mentality
exists...)

I didn't say that mentality didn't exist. I said that the facts show
that the business case based on that mentality has already failed.

It has, has it.

Well, we don't yet live in a world where digital transmission is
mandated, do we.


How does that change that "more is better" (USDTV) failed? Or that every
other attempt to do paid OTA of any variety has failed? Hell, even paid
OTA porn failed!

You can look it up.

Matthew

--
You can bet that a week after Daguerre took the first photograph,
vendors were selling feelthy pictures on the streets of Paris.

Thomas A. Horsley on alt.tv.tech.hdtv

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:42:19 -0500, wrote:

I will never go back to cable

I will always get OTA TV....even HD TV



I suspect your opinion has much to with cost.
Thumper

No, he is probably like me in his logic. It is more out of principle. And
to some of us OTA HD is good enough. And did we mention it was FREE? What
part of "Free" are bothers you?

I can afford a solid gold crapper to **** on but that does not mean I will
run out and buy one.

The money we save can go towards those DVD movies we want to actually buy.

That way we actually spend money on entertainment that we want to see rather
than pay out the ass to see whatever the cable company wants us to see.

Why do you concern yourself about what we do with our money anyway?

Do you have a life?

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:50:06 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:48:55 -0400, Thumper wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:42:19 -0500, wrote:

I will never go back to cable

I will always get OTA TV....even HD TV

I suspect your opinion has much to with cost.

Not cost, but cost effectiveness. I pay $40 a month for fios internet
service. Why? because I get 7 times faster service than I did with DSL at
$14.95 month. What would i get with cable/sat? Nothing but being able to
say I get so many hundred channels that i wouldn't watch much on anyway.
I'm also not in condition mount antennas on the roof, but I did pay a
local 20 year old kid $50 to do it to my specs. Took him a couple of
hours, he was happy. I was happy. Offered him a 144hr Tivo instead. He
took the cash.:-) just because someone doesn't want cable doesn't mean
they can't afford it. I assure you I could prepay it for the rest of my
life and not even notice the loss. But I also don't waste money, and it
would be a waste IMO. I can't say I'll never go back to cale though. I can
say I've never had it and never will. Why?

[[email protected] ~]$ ls /mnt/video/*.mpg
/mnt/video/1041_20060828130114.mpg /mnt/video/1111_20060828110000.mpg
/mnt/video/1051_20060828023000.mpg /mnt/video/1211_20060827190000.mpg
/mnt/video/1051_20060828032800.mpg /mnt/video/1331_20060826140000.mpg
/mnt/video/1052_20060828131608.mpg /mnt/video/1331_20060827020000.mpg
/mnt/video/1111_20060827190000.mpg /mnt/video/1682_20060828020000.mpg
/mnt/video/1111_20060828100000.mpg /mnt/video/1682_20060828130851.mpg
[[email protected] ~]$

As you can see (look at dates in filename) I've programs recorded from 2
ago i haven't watched yet. And this is the off season. When the new shows
start up in the fall, I get very selective on what I record, otherwise I'd
have over 20 hours a day of TV to watch just from OTA. So, you tell me why
I should pay for cable/sat.:-)


No one said you should. I'm just tired of the people who keep
belittling Cable and Satellite when it provides a very good product
for most of us. Many of us do watch more tv than you and like a
broader selection than you. I have both and in my situation Comcast
actually comes in at least as good and most times better. I also can
only get 4 OTA channels. I also watch a lot of premium channels as do
a good segment of society. It's enough to say that cable/satellite
gives you more than you need without claiming that it's a better
signal. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Comcast in some
adjacent communities has inferior reception but it really depends on
where in the upgrade picture lies the one of hundreds of individual
companies that now make up comcast. I happen to have a great picture.

Thumper

Well you pretty much proved to me that you work for the cable company in you
last ****y attempt at a flame war. So your opinion is worth exactly what we
paid for it...nothing.

Thrifty people saving their money and getting their TV for free just irks
the living hell out of you doesn't it? Again, get a damn life.

The man did not even say anything negative about your precious Cable and
here you go off with your bull**** biased Cable crusade.

It's getting old Thumper. Deep six it or I will write a letter Time Warner
to have them fire one of their cable installers for unwarranted harassment
on the Usenet.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article ,
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote:

I didn't say that mentality didn't exist. I said that the facts show
that the business case based on that mentality has already failed.
It has, has it.

Well, we don't yet live in a world where digital transmission is
mandated, do we.

How does that change that "more is better" (USDTV) failed?

One particular piece of "more is better" failed. Before its time,
perhaps? Meanwhile, satellite (hundreds of channels) and digital cable
(hundreds of channels) came into being and were successful. USDTV was
just another delivery method that failed, for reasons outside of the
"more is better" mentality.


You snipped the bit about _EVERY_ pay OTA scheme failing. I wonder why
that is?

Go ahead, look it up. Every single attempt to get paid by viewers for
OTA transmission has failed. Don't you think that has something bearing
on your prediction?

Matthew

--
You can bet that a week after Daguerre took the first photograph,
vendors were selling feelthy pictures on the streets of Paris.

Thomas A. Horsley on alt.tv.tech.hdtv