U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
29,722 posts, read 47,483,706 times
Reputation: 17565

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
Somehow I am not being clear.

SECTV charges (plus taxes and fees)
(S1) $44.95 / mo for 25 Mbps internet & Non-cable subscribers will be billed an additional $10/mo
(S2) $19.49 / mo for Lifeline Cable with local channels
(S3) So presumably local stations and 25 Mbps internet would be $65/month

RCN charges
(R1) $39.99/$44.99/$49.99 for 25 Mbps internet in years 1, 2, 3
(R2) $39.99/$47.99/$55.99 for 25 Mbps internet in years 1, 2, 3 + local stations with 3 STD set top boxes

So most customers need internet today. They might be tempted to go with option S1 or R1 and put up an antenna, but as an alternative there is the option R2 at $3 extra a month for the first three years.

A problem with option R2 is that it doesn't include high definition set top boxes which cost $10/mo apiece.
My landline provides 'DSL' that usually tests at around 1 to 1.5 Mbps for $18/month [no phone just the DSL for that price].

I would think that free OTA signal is still cheaper than paying for cable.

It has been a long time since I lived in a town that had cable, each person needs to figure out what is best for them.



Quote:
... Antenna service gets you high definition, but in some places you need significant height to get any reception at all. Because I am 40 miles from the transmitters, and there is a small mountain in the way, I get almost no reception at all.
Our town gets no reception either.

TV viewing here is either online or via satellite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2013, 10:10 AM
 
2,484 posts, read 1,726,689 times
Reputation: 4240
[[quote=Submariner;31513925]During the shift from high-power analog broadcast, to low-poser digital broadcast, signal strength was cut a great deal. ]


Not true for many stations, especially PBS stations which nowadays are powerful and can be received from 75 miles away in flatter terrain. There are low power stations but even then with a proper antenna you can recieve them from 25 miles away. Those are usually hispanic or other narrow stations of little import to most viewers.

Signals today are transmitted in the high VHF and UHF range such that even outdoor antennae only have to be about one third the size of the old style (largest element is about 36" total width, and will easily fit in an attic). In fact, a UHF antenna with a wire screen reflector and a "bow tie" director element are adequate if carefully placed, even in distant suburban areas. If you are further out consider an outside antenna. You'd be suprised at how many channels you can get. I live 60 miles from the nearest city and get about 15 to 18 channels, quite reliably.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 10:17 AM
 
9,064 posts, read 9,221,268 times
Reputation: 4665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
My landline provides 'DSL' that usually tests at around 1 to 1.5 Mbps for $18/month [no phone just the DSL for that price].

I would think that free OTA signal is still cheaper than paying for cable.

It has been a long time since I lived in a town that had cable, each person needs to figure out what is best for them.
DSL has been openly called a "dead technology" by a number of CEO's. Internet via satellite is expensive and filled with problems, and is often a last resort particularly in rural areas where there is no cable. Most people must go to a cable company to get internet access.

OTA is free, but you still must purchase an antenna and/or build a support structure. Depending on where you are located that could be a little project or a big deal.

I agree that each person needs to figure out what is best for them. My first post was just to check with their cable company. If they are going to purchase internet access from them, some companies are offering local TV channels for just a little bit more (in this case $3 a month). The cable may come with some Video on Demand as well. For such a small sum it isn't worth trying to build a superstructure for an antenna.

If I had transmit towers within 20 miles of me, then I might use an antenna as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
29,722 posts, read 47,483,706 times
Reputation: 17565
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinbrookNine View Post
... Consider an outside antenna. You'd be suprised at how many channels you can get. I live 60 miles from the nearest city and get about 15 to 18 channels, quite reliably.
We bought the 'best' aerial that Radio Shack had. 20 foot mast, with rotor, guy wires, impedance matched coax and an electric signal amplifier in our home, along with the new TV.

We were 'surprised'. Though in a different manner than you suggest.

Before we used to get one channel, now we get none.

We have spoken with most everyone else in our town. We are not alone. When the signal strength was cut, everyone here lost TV reception.

The only folks who have 'TV' now are those who shifted to satellite.



I have explained this previously in this thread.

If you wish I can go over it again for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 11:39 AM
 
2,484 posts, read 1,726,689 times
Reputation: 4240
[quote=Submariner;31589599]We bought the 'best' aerial that Radio Shack had. 20 foot mast, with rotor, guy wires, impedance matched coax and an electric signal amplifier in our home, along with the new TV.

We were 'surprised'. Though in a different manner than you suggest.

Before we used to get one channel, now we get none.

We have spoken with most everyone else in our town. We are not alone. When the signal strength was cut, everyone here lost TV reception.

The only folks who have 'TV' now are those who shifted to satellite.



Mountainous terrain is always a detriment to TV signals. Sounds like you're living in cental Colorado. Or, maybe, you work for "Dish." One other point: In the reception of digital signals. the LOCATION of the antenna is of utmost importance because of the "all or none" reception characteristics. Move the thing around and determine where the best location is. Sometimes just a few feet makes all the difference in the world. Very important with digital signals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top