Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

681 - 700 of 706 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,334 Posts
My cable/internet was down for almost a week whereas my power was off for about two days. So OTA was the only source of new TV that we had, but with all of the stuff on our SageTV server we hardly missed it, except for missing live sports.

I was also able to get 3G/LTE internet service when I had no power although my service was very intermittent for a couple of days immediately after the storm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
MapMaker said:
My son's Rogers Cable TV bill was $78.62, taxes in, for one month of "service". That's $943.44 per year just for him to watch "Speed TV" on one television set.
This kind of puts it in perspective for me, I need TSN to watch the Formula One but when you put it like that...it's costing me as much in a year as going to the race in Montreal costs me, haha.

I can't do without it as I don't want to wait a couple days and download a highly compressed torrent of the race, but certainly it's food for thought.

I can still save a lot off my BEV bill by cancelling the vast majority of channel and go with basic HD + TSN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
ota vs shaw

I posted this on another area within this forum but would like some feedback.

This might have been discussed previous. Camping season is once again upon us and we are enjoying the outdoors. Along with the outdoors comes digital OTA TV.

The difference between free OTA TV and Shaws pay service is like night and day. We were watching a repeat of Crisis, the pilot actually. I had been keenly watching this series on PVR. Watching the OTA pilot was like I was watching a totally different show. The scene in which the girl who is the daughter to the mastermind bad guy when she wakes up in the terrorist mansion was great.
The colors,depth and 3D ness of the picture blew us away.

Last night there was a sitcom called divorce city or something with Fran Dresser. The colors of that show just popped off the screen.

I am missing about half of the picture in my estimation by choosing the convenience of Shaw's PVR. I had forgotten what the experience was like when we watched the summer Olympic games camping a few years back. It certainly did not look like that at home through the PVR!

I have a 3416 and have read that the gateway and newer PVR"s offer a better viewing experience but I cant see them matching the quailty of un compressed OTA video.

Has anyone upgraded from a 6416 or 3416 to the gateway system and noticed and increase in color pallet?

The shaw picture can only be described as dirty compared to the ota picture.

The TV is the same it pulls duty in the winter in our home attached to the shaw pvr and during the summer months it resides within the trailer. we have other TV's as well connected to shaw and none can provide the viewing experience of OTA.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,190 Posts
I have a 3416 and have read that the gateway and newer PVR"s offer a better viewing experience but I cant see them matching the quailty of un compressed OTA video.
There is no such thing as uncompressed video outside of a studio environment. OTA and even Blu Ray disc are still heavily compressed! The difference is in the amount of compression used v.s. digital cable in regards to your comparison with Shaw Cable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
There is no such thing as uncompressed video outside of a studio environment. OTA and even Blu Ray disc are still heavily compressed! The difference is in the amount of compression used v.s. digital cable in regards to your comparison with Shaw Cable.
Excuse my parlance.

It is not only the lack of compression compared to shaw, the color palate is exceptionally wider than shaw.

Again I wonder if the newer boxes are improved in these areas to more closely resemble an OTA feed.
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
Discussion Starter #686
We'll keep it to just discussion of OTA boxes here in the OTA Forum, so regarding the Shaw boxes please stick with your discussion in progress over in the Shaw Cable forum.

A reminder to all that item #12 in OTA FAQ Post #1 gives an overview of comparing cable, satellite, and OTA and then links back to this thread, where it has been discussed a few hundred times in the past. :)

cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,653 Posts
Around here, many OTA repeaters use a DTH satellite feed so the picture no better. It's often worse due to the use of SD feeds or technical issues. It's easy to see which channels use a high quality HD feed. Their picture is much better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Pros:

- I get 25 channels with my attic-mounted CM4221 / CM4228 combo. The current setup probably cost me $350 all in and has paid for itself in cable bills since I installed it this winter... so now, theoretically, it generates savings every month by providing quality HDTV programming for absolutely free. Channel Master antennas and Kitztech preamps are both amazing products, I have to say!

- No need for any cable boxes, extra wires or other extra pieces of electronics to view the signal. The digital TV's ATSC tuner and a run of coax to the cable outlet is all you need. Simple and to the point!

- The image quality is far superior to what I've been used to with cable, plus I get more PBS channels than cable. Sadly (or luckily, however you want to see things), PBS appears to have better educational programming than premium cable channels such as Discovery or History, which seem to concentrate mainly on redneck moonshining and alligator hunting shows these days. :rolleyes:

- The feeling of accomplishment once you get everything up and running is unparalleled, especially when you do your first channel scan. That, plus it impresses the heck out of people who visit you and you show them the HDTV you get for free. Some of the "slower" ones don't seem to grasp how it can be legal and look at you like you're putting them on. They get even more confused when they can't see any antennas outside of your home, haha (in my case, it's all hidden in the attic).



Cons:

- The local cable company keeps sending me flyers in the mail, begging me to subscribe to their overpriced cable internet and cable tv service... and their flyers take extra room in my blue recycling bin every week, lol! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
We got our antenna three years ago. We noticed that the image quality was much better than satellite (which we also had and have now as well as OTA). The first scan showed around 20 channels. We are near Toronto and Buffalo, and still pull in around 20 channels. OTA is definitely better quality than cable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,653 Posts
That's true if you get OTA stations that have direct network feeds. Remote repeaters sometimes use satellite signals as feeds. That means we still get lousy picture quality on some channels with extra problems like more station down time, lack of PSIP data and added artifacts from the extra processing. I guess that's a con if your only OTA is from repeaters.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,064 Posts
The forum doesn't maintain information on the feed type for each transmitter. This information may be found if you search a specific station's licensing submissions on the CRTC's broadcast website.

I do have some concerns with regards to the term "remote satellite feed".

Most (if not all) of the major broadcast networks do use c-band satellite feeds which have exceptional quality and are resistant to rain fade and other issues. I think what ExDilbert is referring to are transmitters which use signals from direct broadcast satellites, which present a level of quality intended for consumers.

For example, CHCH's repeaters utilize Shaw satellite TV service for their repeaters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,653 Posts
Some Global repeaters use Shaw Direct feeds as well. (Shaw own Global so it's a cheap and dirty option for them.) We are on the outside edge of two grade B contour Global signals here. The one that uses a Shaw Direct feed has noticeably lower picture quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,861 Posts
In the US most of the Cable specialty channels and major network broadcasts, originate from CBAND satellite, in a high bitrate unmolested form.
An individual cannot subscribe to these unmolested feeds any longer, so there really is no point in maintaining a list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,096 Posts
Pros:
Ability to watch some sub channels in SD quality and close to 20 broadcast channels ( depending on location and the set up) in 720p or 1080i HD, basically free of charge.

Cons:
No live news, sports and specialty channels that makes Pros irrelevant to people like myself.
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
Discussion Starter #696
A discussion purely about Internet pricing was completely off topic for the OTA Forum so has been deleted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,257 Posts
Remote repeaters sometimes use satellite signals as feeds. That means we still get lousy picture quality on some channels with extra problems like more station down time, lack of PSIP data and added artifacts from the extra processing.
This is partially true and depends on the type of satellite feed. Sometimes it is a high bandwidth satellite feed and provides an excellent picture quality. CBC for example uses satellite for their network feed that the BDUs also use (though they have other issues since they are down-converting a 1080i source to 720p for distribution).

The worst is when they use a BDU's satellite feed as you are then limited by their picture quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,653 Posts
The CBC shut down all their repeaters so all that's left are originating stations. Though it's not guaranteed, I would hope they use high quality, high bandwidth feeds for originating stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Just got a total of 50 channels (HD and SD). Pretty good for free TV. Why would anyone actually spend on the cheapest basic TV plan, between 30-40 tax in. I still don't understand the current TV plan subscribers to shell out money for basic channels when it is all free with a little work or upfront installation from a professional installer. The amount I spent is around under $200 (antenna, preamp, dist. amp, HD 8' fence post and chimney stand-off). The rest is all elbow grease. If you had a professional installer, they may charge $200 max to climb the roof and install it on the chimney (height is a must).
So the total cost if paying someone to install it would be less than one year of basic TV plan. After that, it is free from there on.

BTW, you do not need a separate TV box for each TV. All modern flat panel TV comes with ATSC tuner ready. You just plug in the RG6 signal from the antenna right into the TV and scan for channels.

I been doing this almost 10 years now. First two years was with rabbit ears and cheap clones antenna (waste of money but a lesson well learned). I have never looked back on the switch. So basically, I had free TV for about 9 years.
 
681 - 700 of 706 Posts
Top