The AP ran a story over the weekend that got picked up by many news outlets around the country regarding the attractiveness of using an antenna to capture over-the-air (OTA) HD broadcast signals. The main arguments in favor of OTA compared to cable or satellite are that [1] it's free, and [2] the picture quality can be better than a compressed signal from your cable or satellite provider.
The biggest downside to OTA is that many of the channels you're used to watching aren't available with an antenna. For example, here's a partial list of some of the programs I watch during the week:
- The Sopranos (HBO)
- 24 (FOX)
- House (FOX)
- Entourage (HBO)
- The Office (NBC)
- The Tudors (Showtime)
- Lost (ABC)
- Friday Night Lights (NBC)
- various sporting events (broadcast, ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, Cox 4, etc.)
The first thing that comes to mind is that I watch too much TV. To which I would say "that's my job." Regardless, a quick glance at my normal viewing habits shows that at least half of what I watch in HD is non-broadcast, meaning that I need a cable or satellite high-def box to see it. I can live without a lot of things, but do not take away my Padres or Sopranos in high-def.
So the bottom line here is that when you're considering your HD programming options, I would highly recommend you take a look at your weekly TV schedule and figure out whether most of what you watch is on your local broadcast networks. If so, then OTA via antenna may make sense (depending on local geography). If you watch a decent amount of cable network programming, you'll need a cable or satellite HD receiver to get your high-def fix.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Yeah ...
& don't take away my Red Sox OR Adrianne Palicki & "Friday Night Lights", in HD!!
I hear ya! ;D
NHL in HD is pretty awesome too ... lemme keep that also - Ok?
But will multicasting dilute the OTA beauty? Already there's HD- "lite" over sat and cable.
As owner of http://www.dennysantennaservice.com We have seen antenna sales increase by 300% in 2006, mainly do to the introduction of digital HDTV. Many of our customer's are even turning off their cable/satellite. Choosing the proper TV antenna for a particular location is the main issue. People have a tendency to purchase an antenna that's too small to do the job, digital reception is all or nothing. Also, their is a misconception that all digital-HDTV broadcasts are using the UHF (14-69) band to broadcast their signal. Currently most are because the VHF band (2-13) is full and is being used to broadcast analog signals. However, in February of 2009 the date set to turn off all analog signals things will change. There are only a handful of broadcast markets across the U.S. that will be 100% UHF. This means if you purchase a UHF TV antenna now, chances are you will loose the ability to receive a portion of your digital channels after that date. My best advice is to purchase an antenna that is large enough to be certain it can easily receive all of the digital broadcasts even under poor reception conditions and one that is VHF and UHF capable, unless you are absolutely certain all of your stations are now and will be UHF after the digital transition is complete. You can determine what channels your station are currently broadcasting on and what channels they plan to be on after the deadline by visiting, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
Somehow, rabbit ears antennas come to mind when off-air tv antenna is mentioned. But in fact rabbit ears is a lousy antenna, you need a real directional antenna if you want to pick distant signal. You can understand the situation by reading reviews of hd antennas. All rabbit ears are poorly rated, cause people ar ehaving pretty bad experience with them.
Post a Comment