Pros and Cons of Going OTA

[ryans]

Originally Posted by tigerbangs

Gee, I went all OTA HDTV: but I have 12 digital chnnels available at my house...

WFSB-DT CBS
WTNH-DT ABC
WUVN-DT UNI (so, it's Spanish: it still counts!)
WTXX-DT WB
WEDN-DT PBS
WHPX-DT PAX
WWLP-DT NBC
WVIT-DT NBC
WGGB-DT ABC
WGBY-DT PBS
WCTX-DT UPN
WTIC-DT FOX

Yeah, but how many of us in Canada have this option? :P

If I lived closer to the border say in Windsor or Fort Erie/Niagara Falls I'd probably just be an OTA kind of person. I'd probably miss the sports programming, but that's what the internet is for .

[plutoz]

Originally Posted by filper

I think the biggest hurdle for most chaps is "You're going to put what on the roof of my pretty house ?"

I've counted around 4 antennas is my area (one is obviously a HAM rig).

there was a time that dishes were considered ugly, but now they are everywhere.

I don't think antennas were considered ugly back in the 60's and 70's before cable TV and satellite existed - because everyone had them.

[foxfan]

The channels I'd miss: CPAC, CBC Newsworld (which they could multicast on CBC's DT channels but can't because the CRTC only licenses it for cable), CTV Newsnet, RDI, LCN, and of course, Fox News Channel.

Other than that, I wouldn't really care, since the current specialty channels simply look like (bleep) on a widescreen HDTV.

[stampeder]

Note: I split off this discussion of pros and cons of going OTA into its own thread from the poll discussion "What are your reasons for not going 100% OTA today?".

Given the small number of results we can't make any sweeping generalizations, but it looks from the voting pattern that if a greater number of OTA channels were available many of the poll's respondents would keep their CATV or DBS subscription for the specialty and PPV channels while viewing DTV OTA.

[57]

Originally Posted by stampeder

...while viewing DTV OTA.

Why do you think people who get their signals via Sat or Cable would even "bother" with OTA?

I know we already had this discussion in another thread and I know you're a firm believer in OTA, but I believe that most people will simply not bother, even if OTA were available in their area.

Yes, a select few "videophiles" WILL bother.

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by 57

Why do you think people who get their signals via Sat or Cable would even "bother" with OTA?

I don't know, I honestly can't say. Of course my first instinct is to ask why its a "bother" any more than first getting hooked up for digital CATV or first getting a DBS system installed? THOSE are bothersome because someone probably has to take time off work to be there all day when the installer shows up. OTA is no more bothersome.

[57]

But, if someone already has gone to the bother of getting Cable or SAT, which 90% of Canadians have, then they are not going to "bother" buying a digital STB, cable, antenna, mast, etc and spending a day or two installing them, integrating this all into their existing hardware, or have someone do all of this for them at a cost of say $500-1500 including equipment (depending on STB, antenna, PVR capability, mast, etc).

It's a lot of effort and a fair bit of $...

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by 57

But, if someone already has gone to the bother of getting Cable or SAT, which 90% of Canadians have, then they are not going to "bother" buying a digital STB, cable, antenna, mast, etc and spending a day or two installing them, integrating this all into their existing hardware, or have someone do all of this for them at a cost of say $500-1500 including equipment (depending on STB, antenna, PVR capability, mast, etc).

It's a lot of effort and a fair bit of $...

Good point, and its got me thinking that for such people OTA would probably be the equivalent of a home improvement idea that they would *like* to do someday but never get around to, assuming that there is still a delta between the DTV quality over CATV/DBS and OTA.

[57]

I think we agree. I have thought about this myself on occasion. Right now, I've got more TV than I can watch and I've got good PQ.

If I lived in a "non-Rogers" area, I'd certainly consider it, but I'd probably look at BEV too.

[stampeder]

One other thing just came to mind: as long as HD stations are not included in the main package of stations on DBS/CATV providers (they are considered "premium" services available at extra cost) lets assume a consumer has heard of OTA and knows that all the locally available HD stations are available that way. They can do the math and figure out that over time the OTA gear will pay for itself. The only thing they'd be missing is the timeshifting option by not getting the other HD feeds, but for anyone with a PVR thats not really an issue. People are spending hundreds and thousands of $$$ on Home Theater these days, so I don't see the expense of OTA equipment being any sort of show stopper.

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by 57

If I lived in a "non-Rogers" area, I'd certainly consider it, but I'd probably look at BEV too.

I am totally unimpressed with BEV's compression-related PQ underperformance. Maybe in the future they'll switch to MPEG4 but for the foreseeable future their DTV is demonstrably poorer than OTA.

[57]

Don't forget about HD specialty stations though. In a few years there'll be a lot of HD specialty stations and you can't get those OTA. Sports and Movies are the "big drivers".

One thing we can be sure of, it'll be interesting to see how all this shakes out by 2010.

[robcreaser]

Originally Posted by foxfan

The channels I'd miss: CPAC, CBC Newsworld (which they could multicast on CBC's DT channels but can't because the CRTC only licenses it for cable), CTV Newsnet, RDI, LCN, and of course, Fox News Channel.

Other than that, I wouldn't really care, since the current specialty channels simply look like (bleep) on a widescreen HDTV.

The newsworlds/nets/pulse24's also have sponsers trying to reach every eyeball possible. Once the OTA digital viewership measurement systems kick in that can detect OTA & subchannel viewership I suspect that we'll see the speciality news services on their respective parents network subchannels.

[robcreaser]

Originally Posted by 57

But, if someone already has gone to the bother of getting Cable or SAT, which 90% of Canadians have, then they are not going to "bother" buying a digital STB, cable, antenna, mast, etc and spending a day or two installing them, integrating this all into their existing hardware, or have someone do all of this for them at a cost of say $500-1500 including equipment (depending on STB, antenna, PVR capability, mast, etc).

It's a lot of effort and a fair bit of $...

Not a bad ROI for the millions of CDN cable/sat bill payers that just want a clear feed of mainline US & CDN networks and lie within acceptable range of the digital OTA transmitters.

Digital broadcasting is revolutionary (and therefore will tend to shake things up) no matter the distrubition method.

The hundred's of millions that the cable/sat co's have invested in digital distribution infrastructure also must be paid by the rate payers.

The STB cost is a wash. Antennas are cheap. Non fringe reception area installation a wash.

Its no accident that the cable/sat co's are scrambling to acquire/transfer exclusive compelling content like live sports to their owned non-ota channels.

[robcreaser]

Originally Posted by 57

Don't forget about HD specialty stations though. In a few years there'll be a lot of HD specialty stations and you can't get those OTA. Sports and Movies are the "big drivers".

One thing we can be sure of, it'll be interesting to see how all this shakes out by 2010.

Yes but Blockbuster should be able to deliver a better HD movie viewing experience than the current TMN HD offering in less than a years time. Then the only "big driver" will be exclusive live sports. How long before Rogers or Bell will need to take the Leafs "off line" on order to maintain growth/gain share.