Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Over the Air TV By RabbitEars.Info' started by comfortably_numb, Jan 15, 2019.
1.75% per year is hardly a firestorm of revitalization and it needs the data points to be filled in to establish how it is trending.
With stations carrying up to 16 streams on a single carrier, I can see more than a few losing interest in OTA due to insufferable quality. This is something that is relatively new that stands to get worse fast in some of the denser markets as the repack progresses and the broadcasters get serious about divvying up the spectrum for Next Gen.
I know of a couple of viewers who are throwing in the towel because they don't want some "huge-ass aeriel" on their property.
Are you suggesting that the article is "fake news?" There have been multiple articles posted to this forum over the past few months from various sources, and all indicate a trend upward in OTA usage. If Nielsen's study isn't conclusive enough for you, perhaps you could conduct your own?
Not at all. It is simply that the information given is too sparse to tell what's been going on within the 8 years that the comparison contemplates.
I'm not disputing that the usage may have increased over some interval of time, but most of these surveys have been noticeably lacking in numbers (I mean households or eyeballs, not some mysteriously derived percentages).
The survey may be just what we need, but we need something more than the endpoints to see where it is heading. For all we know, it could have peaked in 2017 and has leveled out or is falling off and both of those outcomes are decidedly different from gaining momentum.
Here are some numbers showing the growth between 1st qtr 2015 to 2nd qtr 2017. Households with antennas grew from 12.5 million to 15.8 million, a gain of 3.3 million, in just 2 years. Estimates now put that number closer to 17 million. It's been a steady trend for a few years now and I do not understand some peoples reluctance to accept that fact.
Number of antenna TV households in the U.S. by type 2017 | Statistic
Antenna sales are rising, in another sign of churn in TV watching
Steady is defined as a statistic that doesn't vary based on the interval chosen. In this case, it is assumed that steady applies to the rate of uptake. Your numbers suggest that the rate of uptake is slowing down:
15Q1 to 17Q2 - (15.8-12.5)/10 quarters = .33 million/quarter
17Q3 to 18Q4 - (17.0-15.8) / 6 quarters = .20 million/quarter
While uptake continues to rise, it would appear to have slowed noticeably over the past 18 months. More data points in the range would afford more accurate modeling as to the true trend.
I would like to see high quality TV shows R rated shows like Games of Throne and the classic Soprano made into R ad supported competing against hard pay TV services. Off course we need to overhaul the FCC seven dirty word and nudity ban. If the free to air stations can able to compete against pay channels for the quality of the TV shows and of course made on the USA R rated classic movies and sadly all chopped up thanks to heavy handed censorship. All will be ad supported that for sure with no cut up or bleeping and blurred up images.
I keep hearing this bleating about OTA TV needs to be able to air naughty content to compete. Yet, in the "Golden Age of Television", married couples slept in twin beds and networks practiced great restraint. Loosening standards hasn't led to better programming, and I can't help but to believe that loosening them further would result in fewer eyeballs watching network TV. Not everyone wants that content openly available.
Having said that, OTA stations are already allowed to air more racy content...after 10 PM local time. Remember when WBNC anchor Sue Simmons dropped the f-bomb on a live news promo? No government sanctions were put on the station, or on her personally because it occurred just barely after 10 PM. I remember my local NBC affiliate airing The Deer Hunter, uncut, after the late local news. If people want to see that stuff so badly, tell them to write their local stations asking them to play it during safe harbor hours. Then they can record it and watch it during prime time hours, if they must.
This isn't why you don't hear the words or see the skin. For that you can thank the nanny groups who threaten boycotts of the advertisers. Some people have absolutely no sense of context. Then again, some parents have no idea what their children are watching or aren't actively involved in helping them understand what they're seeing. Some of the Disney "soaps" would be considered scandalous by many but because it is Disney, the nannies aren't nannying as furiously.
The FCC rules limit when and how often the words may be used but they certainly don't remove them from the vocabulary.
If you define good programming by skin shown and foul language, you are truly mistaken.
Literally no one said that and that you saw it is a symptom of a very real problem.
You do have to wonder why so many of the popular prime time shows have spawned euphamisms and sound-alike phrases though.
We are in a native american water vesel up a river of excermite with out means of propulsion
I think you meant a "brook of excrement" or perhaps an "affluent of effluent".
No its from the big bang theory rover on mars.