Surprise Interest in Over-The-Air (HD)TV

No spirize since many people only got cable in the first place due to
lousy reception. That and they are tired of getting the shaft from
cable companies.

On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:13:29 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.


And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

That is not what OTA lacks. We receive an excellent picture and sound
from no less than 8 OTA HD channels. Unfortunately what they lack is
content. Rarely do I see anything of interest from the major networks
an any movies are so watered down they barely resemble the originals.


In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.


snip

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to

None of this including different tools would be necessary if they had
anything worth watching. What we receive is technically of excellent
quality, but has no substance.

Crispin..

Just as a side note..you have a great informative website about Canada gun
laws
Glad I'm going (back) to the US!

Very enlightening!

On May 7, 11:02 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:13:29 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.

And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

That is not what OTA lacks. We receive an excellent picture and sound
from no less than 8 OTA HD channels. Unfortunately what they lack is
content. Rarely do I see anything of interest from the major networks
an any movies are so watered down they barely resemble the originals.



In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.

snip

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to

None of this including different tools would be necessary if they had
anything worth watching. What we receive is technically of excellent
quality, but has no substance.



Much of what is on is junk. But not all of it, and much of it is
better than cable. With digital OTA we have gained 2 additional PBS
channels, another kids channel, and a nice selection of great reruns.
I use a DVR to eliminate commercials and grab shows that run at a bad
time, and my ReplayTV can grab the occassional show I no longer get.

Cable wasn't so hot. Most of the channels had so many commercials
they were just as annoying to watch. If I want a movie, I get it from
the library. I remember having 300 different channels to choose
from. And I remember turning on the TV and turning it right off
because I didn't care for any of it.

On 08 May 2007 17:53:35 GMT, (Thomas Aquinas) wrote:

Crispin..

Just as a side note..you have a great informative website about Canada gun
laws
Glad I'm going (back) to the US!

Very enlightening!

Wow. Great stuff.

Note to those not paying attention. SF passed a law last year to
ban and confiscate current handguns in San Francisco. Law was
stopped by a judge, the appeals continue.

I'm outta here soon enough. I give a ****. BUT... I pity you ****s
when they REALLY get you by the balls

On 8 May 2007 11:32:05 -0700, mogator88 wrote:

On May 7, 11:02 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:13:29 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
On May 6, 10:27 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article ,

"Tantalust" wrote:
"....consumers don't realize they can receive crystal-clear high-definition
pictures for free....",
Article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ind...lePrint&articl...
9202
aka, "People are stupid."

Uninformed doesn't necessarily mean stupid. For most people, how
they receive their TV signal isn't on top of mind.

And though many on this newsgroup think US citizens like to pay for
cable and will pay any price to avoid OTA I disagree. If OTA had the
right modulation and codec it could offer real competition to the public
and the public would respond just as they have in every other country
where it has been tried.

That is not what OTA lacks. We receive an excellent picture and sound
from no less than 8 OTA HD channels. Unfortunately what they lack is
content. Rarely do I see anything of interest from the major networks
an any movies are so watered down they barely resemble the originals.



In the US broadcasters, retailers and manufacturers are all paying
minimal attention to OTA for some reason.

snip

None of this would be necessary if broadcasters had the right tools to

None of this including different tools would be necessary if they had
anything worth watching. What we receive is technically of excellent
quality, but has no substance.



Much of what is on is junk. But not all of it, and much of it is
better than cable. With digital OTA we have gained 2 additional PBS
channels, another kids channel, and a nice selection of great reruns.
I use a DVR to eliminate commercials and grab shows that run at a bad
time, and my ReplayTV can grab the occassional show I no longer get.

Cable wasn't so hot. Most of the channels had so many commercials
they were just as annoying to watch. If I want a movie, I get it from
the library. I remember having 300 different channels to choose
from. And I remember turning on the TV and turning it right off
because I didn't care for any of it.

Then you must never watch tv now.
Thumper