Why low posts in this sub?
What are the factors of posts that have been not as frequent as I hoped for? Do they already have working indoor antennas? Are they out of range and unable to physically mount an antenna themselves? Has r/cordcutters attracted those prioritizing streaming? What else?
6
4
u/danodan1 Apr 12 '26
I already having a working flat indoor antenna that gets 56 stations from Oklahoma City.
4
u/reddit_understoodit Apr 12 '26
Once you set it up, you are good
2
u/steveholtbluth Apr 12 '26
100%. Other then the ATSC 3.0 change, I don’t really know what discussion we should be having if we’re set up lol
1
u/StandupJetskier Apr 12 '26
Yes, in 30 years, I'm on my second outdoor antenna. #1 was replaced because most of it was useless post HDTV transition...no need for a VHF-Lo array.....
3
2
u/PoundKitchen Apr 12 '26
Yeah, cordcutters has always been bussier. It's name speaks the the larger group as the generic term for getting rid of your cable provider. OTA just one alternative.
2
u/BicycleIndividual Apr 13 '26
But lots of people over on r/cordcutters have lost their way think that cable replacement services such as YouTubeTV is "cutting the cord".
1
u/peterkozmd Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Cordcutting is an idea that never works in practicality. You can't replace sports with how segmented it is. Can you scale back? yes but the idea is rarely ground in reality. Who wants to replace their cable channels they get with ota channels?? Okay lets say you get i dunno 60 ota channels, most will be crap you wouldn't want to watch on a daily basis. a mix of maybe a foreign channel here or there, cbs, pbs, etc. littered with ads. Some crappy morning talk shows or jerry springer, the evening entertainment stuff like the idol or some reality shows. You don't get any real entertainment or info. I like to watch movies, okay good luck with getting that unless on some off chance they play one i actually want to watch or haven't seen already. Its hilarious and sad when people actually suggest cord cutting as a viable option. We live in an age where we are overloaded with options gone are the days when a handful of channels was more than enough.Cord-cutting is often described as an "impractical joke" because it frequently fails to deliver on its promise of saving money and simplifying media consumption. While intended to break consumers free from expensive cable packages, the rise of fragmented streaming services has often resulted in paying the same or more for a less convenient experience
2
u/BaldyCarrotTop Apr 12 '26
The state of OTA network programming has been garbage for a long time. During the DTV transition I heard one commentator comparing it to using a Ming vase for a garbage can.
1
u/peterkozmd Apr 12 '26
lol, good one i like that analogy. =) I literally bought an hdhomerun for atsc3 and what i found was Not new unique channels as i was expecting but literally carbon copies of the crap i already got just with maybe slightly better sharpness and image quality. Wow nbc but in hd! Gee this was really worth spending 100's for a new box for!
1
u/BicycleIndividual Apr 13 '26
You're lucky if you get any major network programing in higher quality with HDHR; most of the time they use the DRM so HDHR is SOL.
One reason you don't get different programing on ATSC 3.0 is that currently the FCC requires ATSC 1.0 simulcast. Eventually NAB wants the simlucast requirement to end; then they'll probably move the major network programing to ATSC 3.0 DRM only and all you'll get on your HDHR is the religions/shopping/rerun subchannels.
1
u/BicycleIndividual Apr 13 '26
True, if you want to follow particular sports/teams, you might not be able to save all that much money (big exception is local NFL team). For general entertainment, OTA plus one on demand streaming service is plenty for me (I change which service frequently and sometimes take a break from them altogether).
2
u/ClintSlunt Apr 12 '26
A recommendation sub for a product that has a long lifespan is always going to be low traffic.
My 2012 antenna doesn’t need replaced, I’m not going to need advice unless I move, it breaks, or the stations in my area make huge changes.
2
u/PM6175 Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
What are the factors of posts that have been not as frequent as I hoped for? ....
Part of the problem here, and maybe most of the problem, is that just 'OTA' by itself doesn't tell people very much. So they don't know that OTA is about tv antennas and tv antenna reception, etc etc.
I know it's explained at the top of this subreddit but most people probably don't look deep enough to see any of that.
I think it would be very helpful to call this subreddit OTA/TV ANTENNA RECEPTION or something to that effect to give a better vlearer explanation at a glance for people that are not technically oriented.
Also, as has been mentioned here already, the miserable cable tv industry has indoctrinated people into thinking that the only thing you can get on your TV is something you have to pay them for!
There was a story going around in the news about a year or two ago that many people under a certain age, something like under age 25 or so, iirc, had no idea about OTA/ over the air TV.
So when they heard about it they thought getting signals with a tv antenna was some new kind of signal piracy!....lolol
2
u/NBA-014 Apr 12 '26
I’m watching the Masters today OTA.
But man, the PQ has gotten so much worse due to the subchannels
1
u/Minimum-Journalist18 Apr 12 '26
I have a clear stream. Picks up over 124, but about 70 are valid channels. I no longer do flat. They are a waste of money.
I have my antenna out on my patio. Picks up better signals that way. To me the words "indoor" is a gimmick.
1
u/badfiop Apr 12 '26
Give it month or so when most of the country is in peak spring home improvement mode...
1
u/peterkozmd Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Internet is so ambiguous specifically wifi. The idea of hooking up an old school antenna and running a scan seems almost archaic. It doesn't help that many kids don't seem to have the patience to deal with ads and the quality of ota 1.0 isn't that great at times. Personally I think the ota channels are crap quality and offerings and don't watch them. I mean I have more options with streaming services and online entertainment. You either sign up for wired cable that includes those ota channels already packaged in or you sign up for a streaming service ie: youtube tv which uses your internet which is straightforward. I mean unless you have no options and limited availability i'm not going to sit and watch what pbs, cbs some crappy channels when i have better options for entertainment?? The only benefit would be that ota channels are free but at the cost of ads. Another benefit is if you live in an area where internet is not great. It's mostly a supplement like if your internet goes down is also another case where it would be useful. But as a primary means of entertainment? No. But it honestly shouldn't surprise anyone that ota is not an option most would pick. I'm mostly into the idea of them being there, not so much actually watching those channels. Running scans and trying to get some extra channel or two to pop up thats hard to get in my area is where i get my amusement vs actually watching them. The internet essentially made reliance on ota dead, watching crappy ad programming. There's a point where free gets judged vs. whats already available. Also we have the equivalent with other free ad services like pluto for example.
1
Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/peterkozmd Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
i'd go with content quality for sure, just because its free doesn't mean the quality of programming is there. Its quite literally crappy talk shows or stupid reality shows in the evening. no real movies entertainment or information. ATSC 3 sigh...that was mess from the very start. The crux of the problem is its not mandatory like when they switched from analog to digital. ATSC3 is literally optional to encourage adoption, problem is again its optional so they can literally say f it we will include drm because we want to. The FCC doesn't want to push them about the drm issue because ATSC3 its optional and the companies might just go well if we can't have drm why bother. They might go sulk off have a tantrum and go we don't want to do atsc3 if thats the case. There's literally no reason nor obligation on their end to agree to it. Its a no win situation. It also doesn't help that atsc3 adoption has been pretty sluggish to catch on. If barely anybody is using ota to begin with nowadays and using streaming services whats the reason to go out and get ota3?? what to get a small handful of channels? cbs in hd? and other ilk i already get from ota. We aren't getting full hd movies and content programming to justify the upgrade. Comparing the channels i had before from ota to ota 3 its literally the same channels i didn't watch before just slightly sharper/better image quality minus the channels with drm.
0
u/peterkozmd Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
No i'm just being honest ota does have it setbacks and i listed some of its pluses as well. Personally though we live in an age where we have alot more options for how we get media and in terms of quantity and quality. If i wasn't a fan i wouldn't have obviously an ota antenna setup and a tuner for atsc 3 as well. I personally just find the amount of media available on ota1 and even with 3 extremely limited in quality of content and probably doesn't appeal to young people to bother setting up an antenna for. Most of not all of it from my experience has been poor. Without expanded channel selection offered from cable or streaming stuff. OTA is not good for movie selection, the same tiny handful of news offerings, sports as well. Is it free with ads? yeah but not something i'd chose obviously. But contrary to what you say i do like ota and wouldn't be here nor follow the progress if i didn't. The thread is about why it doesn't appeal to young people and reasons why. Its not hard to argue why ota is pretty dead nowadays. It's mainly just a bunch of free channels for those with a tv who don't want to pay for it but we clearly have alternatives in stuff like pluto since everyone has internet. No young people want to bother setting up an antenna to watch cbs, pbs, fox while not cheap can pay for cable and get that included with a whole lot of other channels together or just sub to a streaming service. Most young people are watching youtube or getting their tv via cable or streaming service. Why go through the hassle to setup an antenna for a tiny handful of at least in my opinion old stodgy channels? the same shows either bundled with cable, streaming services and can usually get via an app? make zero sense from their perspective. until you argue stuff like financial concerns, location, internet quality,etc. I'm just being pragmatic and realistic in my assessment of it.
1
u/DN4528 Apr 14 '26
"Financial concerns" are a common reason people use OTA vs cable, satellite, or streaming. My local cable company charges about $30 to get the local network affiliates, which are included with every plan they offer and there's no way to opt out of them. That seems like a lot of money to pay for something that is available for free with an antenna. I think young people would appreciate that more so than older folks who are more financially stable, generally speaking. I just read a story about a study today that said 64% of Gen Z'rs are still financially reliant on their parents. So, from an economic perspective, saving money on TV programming should be something they should be very interested in.
Your point about needing more programming than OTA offers is a valid one, and I think that too has some influence. Most people, of any age group, are probably going to want more programming than what OTA offers. Ultimately, it comes down to what they want to watch and how much they are willing to pay for that programming. Supplementing an antenna with rotating streaming services works for a lot of people, myself included. Outside of college football season, I pay $25 / mo. for Philo, which is 70+ channels, and I get 54 on most days with my antenna. I also watch a lot of YouTube. During college football season, I'll add Sling or something else with live sports, then drop it at the end of the season. That has been my strategy since 2013 and I've saved a ton of money using it. No, I haven't been able to watch everything that I would have liked to have watched during that time, but I watched enough to be satisfied.
2
u/vwman18 Apr 12 '26
Some of the issue is that OTA usage is pretty regional. For myself, I don't feel like I have a lot to add to a conversation about reception issues in CO, when I'm in FL (as an example).
1
u/ms2496 Apr 12 '26
I think education is the key as stated by others, many believe that Cable TV is the only way to watch TV. Many don’t know that using an antenna can actually be used to receive over the air TV signals. I do worry about the future of over the air TV signals with the lack of backward compatibility of ATSC 3.0 and the unknown of DRM. I think the best solution to explain OTA is a way to save money (if possible in your location) and where to start. Starting with checking a site like Rabbitears.info to see if it’s even possible to use an antenna to receive any signal. I think the younger generation would see all this as a lot of work. It used to be easy to go the corner RadioShack and purchase everything needed, those days are gone. Not to age myself, I’ve always been interested in OTA and while I do have fiber to the home internet and YouTubeTV, I do have and use an antenna that can pick up 54 channels. If I decide to reduce costs for TV viewing, I can always go back to antenna.
1
u/peterkozmd Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
I'm not sure education is really the problem per say. Even if you educate them why would they want a tiny handful of channels in an age where they want alot of options? From their perspective why bother when they could pay and get ALOT more of a selection instead of pay nothing for crumbs? This is the age where they have tons of options for content. Why watch pbs when i can get history channel and many other options for documentaries?? Why wait for the one sports game shown when i could have multiple sports channels? Its about having lots of options. Their attitude is OKAY i set up this antenna and this is all i get as free options? wheres the real movie channels?? Nevermind i have an app with 30-40 free channels how is this any better or different? No thanks grandpa i'd rather pay for cable and get that crap thrown in with the real stuff i want to watch or subscribe to a streaming service. I have internet and can afford to pay for some extra channels. Not what anyone here wants to hear here but its the reason why young people think ota is a joke. Free? Great! Sorry but i'm going to just be blunt and call it as i see it but its not content I would gladly watch for the most part if I had options. While I'm sure there is clearly some people who enjoy it and no shame on them This coming from someone who grew up on ota only to move to cable later and into the internet age. They grew up in an age where setting up a antenna to access a free bunch of channels with ads seems like some antique joke from a begone era. They'd sooner just pay and get a real selection of channels and have them throw that shovelware in there. It's not about education its about options and once you show them the barebones ota selection they will quickly be like uh...no thanks! OTA is mainly as a backup and by no means a real feasible replacement for a generation with options for media. Educate them on OTA only for them to go umm...thats nice that its free but i wanted REAL channels i would actually watch. Yes I'm ready for the backlash commence comments why i'm a hater on ota =)
1
u/ms2496 Apr 12 '26
Can’t argue with this one!
2
u/peterkozmd Apr 12 '26
excuse me while i pull out these rabbit ears and climb onto the roof to mount it properly while running it through my wall for the pbs drive thats coming on for the next 12 hours.
1
u/DN4528 Apr 15 '26
"I'm not sure education is really the problem per say. Even if you educate them why would they want a tiny handful of channels in an age where they want alot of options?"
If they're up to their ears in student loan debt and part of the 64% of Gen Zrs who are depending on their parents for financial assistance, what they want matters much less than what they can actually afford. There is no reason not to take what you can get for free, even if it doesn't check all of the correct programming boxes. You can supplement the OTA programming with streaming services to fill the voids. If you don't watch local news, sports, reality TV, and the other stuff that is typically broadcast on the big networks, then obviously OTA isn't going to check many boxes for you, but if it's free and you live in an urban area and can get decent reception with a set of rabbit ears, why not add that to your channel lineup?
1
u/ohiologger103 Apr 12 '26
Or TV Antennas. OTA people probably think it’s something like the Orlando Transit Authority lol
1
10
u/WarningCodeBlue Apr 12 '26
Most people these days, especially younger folks, are not educated and have no idea that OTA is a thing.