Prefer OTA Than Paying for To Watch

[Clarbear]

Since digital television came out years ago I ask myself why should I pay companies to watch channels that I am able to get most of them over the air stations anyway. Sure I miss some of them but I still prefer over the air stations for free.

 

[mdram]

thats great if you can get any stations. many of us dont have that choice, i think i get 3 OTA

 

[mdonnelly]

I watch 4 or 5 of the 40+ OTA digital stations that I can get (not counting the big-4 networks plus PBS), but that's not enough. I still want a variety of stations with news, movies, sports and documentaries at all times of the day and night. Am I spoiled by having so much content available to choose from? Yes, but I've reached the age and stage of life where I can afford to pay for what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.

When I was a kid 60 years ago, we had ABC and NBC, and CBS OTA if the weather was right. Even then I wasn't satisfied with the choices. But it was better than the one station that AFRTS broadcast at my base in Greece.

 

[harshness]

Since digital television came out years ago I ask myself why should I pay companies to watch channels that I am able to get most of them over the air stations anyway.

It is a question that has a different answer for everyone. Modern OTA television covers a lot of ground, but a considerable amount of it is re-runs and old movies (especially oaters and war films) that have been played to death.

Then there are entire genres that get relatively poor treatment OTA like sports and music. More than half of the Olympics broadcasts happened on non-OTA channels. March Madness via OTA was pretty tough and NCAA football was very limited. In my market we have one of the better teams in MLS soccer, but there's almost no soccer coverage OTA for either MLS or any of the foreign leagues. Our music options are mostly limited to what our PBS station airs

 

[spongella]

Go on tvfool.com and see what stations are in your area. It'll also give you guidance on what antenna to choose. Here I use one of those "150 mile" antennas that cost about 30 bucks and get many channels. Am half-way between Philly and NYC though so there's lots to choose from.

I like OTA because it's regional. Give it a try, you might like it.

 

[harshness]

Go on tvfool.com and see what stations are in your area.

TVFool doesn't tell you what kind of programming you're likely to get nor how saturated with commercials and infomercials that it is likely to be. That information is pretty critical to telling you whether or not OTA alone (or at all) is worth the price of admission (the cost of an antenna setup -- and perhaps a tuner if you have an display that doesn't feature a DTV tuner).

 

[Justin Hill]

TVFool doesn't tell you what kind of programming you're likely to get nor how saturated with commercials and infomercials that it is likely to be. That information is pretty critical to telling you whether or not OTA alone (or at all) is worth the price of admission (the cost of an antenna setup -- and perhaps a tuner if you have an display that doesn't feature a DTV tuner).

If you are interested in what kind of programming the stations in your viewing area offer, you might want to look up the Titan TV or Zap2it guides, and type in your zip code.

 

[jayn_j]

Been here already in other threads. He is in the Milwaukee market and we have a pretty rich set of subchannels here. Same as most big cities.

 

[Tampa8]

As we do in Tampa. However especially since OTA going digital Satellite locals are more reliable. Getting a few of the stations all the time is a little bit of a challenge and I'm not all that far from the Tower arrays and have a good antenna. VHF Digital can be a bear on some days.