For TV owners without cable: Has digital transmission improved your reception?

[BurtWorm]

I'm curious, especially about people who have no cable in high rise cities like New York, for which cable was invented.

Subtext question: Can you get rid of cable and be left with reception of local stations that you don't have to tinker with? (I'm sick of paying $$$'s for TV, which is, 99% of the time, fucking worthless!)

[supernova]

1. Don't have it yet

but I got rid of Sat TV (closed my account an don't pay anymore) and because I still have the equip, I still get the signal, unscrambled. :crazy:

[BurtWorm]

6. That sounds like a good deal.

;-)

[HopeHoops]

2. I don't get cable (by choice) and haven't tried broadcast since the switchover.

I think the TV is digital ready and if not I know the DVD/VCR player has a digital tuner. I just haven't had any reason to try either.

[BurtWorm]

You're not missing anything.

Trust me!

[HopeHoops]

35. That's what I thought when I shut it off in '82. I believe it is worse now.

We did get cable for 9 months 10 years ago while my youngest was in kindergarten, but only for Mr. Rogers, Reading Rainbow, etc. We canceled it at the end of the school year.

[BurtWorm]

45. It is worse now. Mainly because there's so much more of it

and it's all about as worthless.

[HopeHoops]

46. "I got 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from" - Pink Floyd - "The Wall"

Which is worse: 13 channels of shit or 500 channels of shit?

[BurtWorm]

50. A similar question: which is worse, 13 pounds of shit or 500 pounds of shit?

;-)

[HopeHoops]

52. That depends on if it is being dumped on you or being dumped on a Republican.

The preferred quantities should be obvious.

[BurtWorm]

54. So true!

:patriot:

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. The reception sucks in Indy where I am

I may have a sub-standard antenna, but some channels simply freeze every few seconds. In addition, When I went to digital, I got over SEVEN God channels. In fact, the Christian channels almost outnumber the regular channels where I am.

I do get one good channel worth watching - PBS.

[BurtWorm]

12. Sickening!

They added a whole mess of God channels to my cable package too, but they're stuck in the middle of a subscription-only desert (hundreds and hundreds of useless channels), so I don't notice them.

[LiberalFighter]

40. Have you tried your tv menu to see if you can hide those channels?

When you do a scan for your OTA digital channels or Cable you might be able to change the ones found to hidden if you don't want them.

[BurtWorm]

43. Let's face it, if I got only the channels I really needed or wanted, I'd have two channels.

Comedy Central and Free movies on demand. The rest of them are virtually worthless to me. God channel or Mammon Channel, they're all the same to me.

[hlthe2b]

4. sometimes... highlly weather sensitive, though

which is damned annoying... I do get additional stations, but not really anything to write home about--mainly religious and spanish channels from the UHF band that I couldn't get before. And, while I am in Denver, not NY or CHicago, there are high rises in the neighborhood. Given how little I watch tv, however, (proudly cable-less for 5 years now), it will have to do. I should add, that I am using a well-rated indoor (not outdoor) antenna only and I find that I frequently have to rescan all the channels and invariably one of the broadcast channels proves hard to pick up without fiddling for several minutes or more.

[BurtWorm]

14. Just curious: have you noticed a little flowering in your bank account since ditching cable?

[hlthe2b]

19. Well,even before I cut cable, I'd dropped it down to minimal

(though the cable companies won't tell you, there is a very minimal package the FEDS require them to offer at <$20 per month). It has probably been closer to 10 years since I've had a major cable package. The savings now helps pay for an unlimited data plan for my cell that I can also use as modem for my laptop. So, that is a good trade off, I think. I so hated dealing with my cable company that I'm more pleased to have not had that headache for the past five years than anything.

I have generally been able to watch the shows I wanted to watch online. I'm disturbed by reports that comcast is trying to take over online web tv so that you can't watch unless you have a subscription. FCC has got to stop that BS.

[BurtWorm]

23. I hate the bastidges who run American business now.

They're all about ruining our quality of life, when you get right down to it, and making us pay them for the loss.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. I have the minimum package (Local channels plus public access, CNN, and CSPAN)

but only because it's cheaper to get cable plus Internet than Internet alone.

The cable portion here is $12.95 a month, and I use the savings to buy a Netflix subscription, and much of what isn't available from Netflix can be ordered from one of the European or Asian Amazon stores.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Here in San Francisco we didn't get NBC at all, at first.

After being deluged with complaints, the broadcaster upgraded the equipment. We, personally, upgraded our indoor antenna and now our transmission is better than analog. We do have to get up now and again to tinker with the antenna when we switch between channels.

[BurtWorm]

15. How much to upgrade the antenna?

[Luminous Animal]

22. It cost $35-$40 at Best Buy.

[BurtWorm]

28. Thanks.

Better than $40 a month forever.

[proudohioan]

39. You only pay $40 per month?

Lucky dog, you!!! Our Time Warner has so thoughtfully raised the rate of basic cable (you know, channels 2 thru 99) to a whopping $64.85 per month! $40 per month was two years ago for us!

I'm with you, about ready to just quit paying and let them disconnect. Like the other posters have pointed out, it's 99% garbage anyhow!

[BurtWorm]

41. It was a one-year deal, and the price just went up to the regular rate.

I'm not sure what exactly it is, but it's probably more in your ballpark. (and for what?!)

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. No. We lost 4 of 7 free channels.

And gained about 3 new but largely useless UHF type stations in the changeover.

I'm in NY. Thankfully we retained PBS but we lost NBC and CBS altogether.

One unexpected plus: we lost FOX.

The quality of the reception for the stations we retained is not as good as it was pre-transition.

But it's adequate. We don't watch a huge amount of TV.

[BurtWorm]

17. Wow! You lost three network affiliates!?

So even the networks think of themselves as basically cable stations now.

[fizzgig]

8. not really

i get the same channels i did before the change. it seems a lot more weather sensitive now, too.

[eShirl]

9. what we do get, comes in better

but we lost our local NBC channel

[begin_within]

10. It's actually worse for some stations...

With the old analog system reception was variable and spotty, and a lot depended on the positioning of the antenna. With the new system, using rabbit ears and a converter box, some channels come in clearly most of the time, but many channels have problems, which can't always be fixed by repositioning the antenna. We often see mosaic squares (pixelization) or the picture simply freezes while the sound continues, or the sound quits while the picture continues, or sometimes the sound drops to a much lower pitch, giving people weird monster-like voices. When digital broadcast TV was being promoted heavily, I remember the commercials saying that there would be no more interference or static or snow, either you would have a clear picture or no picture at all. This has turned out to not be the case. Many times we see pictures with digital noise on them. Apparently part of it is related to how far away you are from the transmitting towers. We area about 12 miles from most of the towers for the stations we receive. The promise of a crystal-clear picture and clear sound was kind of a marketing tactic; the reality of it, at least from my point of view, is that reception problems with digital broadcast TV are just as bad (and even more common) than those with analog TV. Of course that's all part of a giant conspiracy to do away with free TV altogether...

[BurtWorm]

20. I've got cable and we get lots of digital noise.

Maybe not as much as you without cable get. But we get pixellation and white spots, and occasional freezes, and sound drop-outs.

[thatgemguy]

11. Improvement???

Since the digital transition, we have lost the ability to receive our local channels. We live less than 10 miles from two TV transmitter sites, but we live in a valley in rugged terrain. With analog signals, the channels we received were less than ideal quality but still watchable. Now, nada, zilch, nothing. I hate cable but am forced to have it to watch any television.

Free TV, the way it was meant to be!!!

[BurtWorm]

13. Amazingly, most Americans probably haven't seen free TV since the 1970s.

It used to be considered an American birthright. What a nation of suckers we've become! Paying for this shit, nonstop advertisements and all!

[NoGOPZone]

16. Getting a new antenna, mounting it as high as I could, and fooling with its location has improved

my reception to where I'm not regularly getting 'No Signal' errors. For the small amout of TV I view, I'm not sure if it was worth the time and effort.

[BurtWorm]

24. Better than wasting money on cable.

At least you're not throwing away money on a lot of nothing every month.

[crispini]

18. Mine's about the same.

But my neighbor's is worse. I think it's very variable. There's a great site, I think it's antennaweb.com, where you can look into the signals in your area and what type of antenna you may want to get. I just have rabbit ears and they're ok but not great.

[BurtWorm]

26. Thanks for that!

:toast:

[LeftinOH]

21. Yes- and I get more channels now, too (no cable, better reception) nt

[Coventina]

25. I'm still convinced the whole thing was an industry-backed scam.

It's really annoying, because you will THINK that you have a station tuned in, and then the next day it won't work.

The plus sides: I like having 4 local PBS stations, and an 80's music video station. But ultimately, it's not worth the hassle.

[BurtWorm]

27. You're absolutely right.

It was all about kick starting the sales of TVs, just like CDs were about rejuvenating the music industry.

[Hidden Stillness]

29. It Killed U.S. Stations; Now Gets Nothing

I have one TV with cable, the main one, and an old non-cable upstairs--they killed everything; I have no stations anymore on that TV. Luckily, I live in Michigan, next to Ontario, (Canada still broadcasts analog), so the two Canadian channels--CBC and TVO--are still there, but all else is dead. I hooked the converter box up, (finally, after finally getting accurate instructions, not like what was on the box), and now, nothing. I need an antenna on the roof, hooked up to this small TV upstairs; a huge, needless expense. Fuck it; now I only use the one with cable. Killed the use of the other one, and I feel sorry for people who have no money for all this worthless, forced commercial-product buy shit, from the Republican/"D"LC paying back its donors. I'm sure this has happened to possibly millions of people, but the rich media never tells the stories of "my class." Not interesting.

[BurtWorm]

34. Well I find what you say very interesting indeed.

And it just underscores the sad fact that American culture has become almost totally coopted by the corporations. Why do we not only put up with that shit but willingly pay good money to go along with it? What are we really buying when we're buying TV? Are we buying good information? Hell, no! So what are we buying?

[Hidden Stillness]

77. This Situation is All Part of the Larger Problem of Corporate Takeover

I think the whole story of what the corporate big-business interests have done over the many years to TV (just to take one situation among thousands), changing laws and regulations, killing regulations, consolidating, violating things that used to be illegal, etc., just gives you a painfully clear example that it is impossible to fight the abuse of huge, wealthy, organized power, and corrupted legislators. It is too easy, as a recent thread here on generations, to say "you should have done this," "why didn't you stop that," but when you really face it and think about how futile all your efforts really are--especially now since Obama, elected by "the young people," has been shown to be such a crooked, corporate piece of shit--you have to face the fact that you are actually dealing with a true kind of oppression here, and it is not going to be easily gotten rid of, if at all. Sometimes, you have to face the fact that there are powerful forces, completely stopping you.

I agree with some comments on this thread that this seems to be an effort to completely rework the industry, get rid of free TV, make you pay for everything and get nothing. I have also heard, and agree, that it is an effort to so completely change the technology that F.C.C. rules will no longer apply at all, under the pretext that this is a "new, different" industry. Now, of course, they increase the number of commercials per hour over and over, no limits anymore, increase the volume, once illegal, no public service, such as having to have news a certain number of times a day and community issues broadcasts, no access to members of the public to make commentary as before, etc. No matter how huge the crowds at F.C.C. public comment forums have been, and how angry--and clear--they are, nothing they want ever happens. It just steamrolls on like nothing ever happened.

The F.C.C. itself has now, under Bush and Obama, been totally destroyed--I don't even know what it is for anymore. They used to regulate and punish commercial broadcasters for the public interest; now, forum after forum on C-SPAN, and all I ever hear, is them pushing/selling "new technology." This is not what they are supposed to be doing! Like Obama's first "solution" to the health care crisis, "put it all on computer," a bizarre respnse, which leads to as much fraud, loss and corruption as any other system, but perfectly clear if you think of it as paying back a techno-donor. They never regulate anything anymore, and all the heads of the F.C.C. for many years, have been industry hacks.

I also think they wanted to put everything on cable originally so they could isolate and control the audience (what we used to call the "citizens"). Until like the late 1980s (?), there was a thriving number of local broadcast stations around the country, independently owned, and if you played around with the antenna, you could pick many of them up--I used to love doing that especially late at night when the signals were clearer. You had a real range of things to choose from, and could listen to different news, etc. Now, you are isolated in your little media cubicle, and you don't know anything your corporate master doesn't want you to know about.

All the content over the years has also shifted to them and their interests--corporate settings for dramas and comedies, stupid non-real-world content, propaganda on a level never heard of before, brainless TV and no longer any effort to have great writing, profit-making as the only motive, so that you have infomercials wasting the entire broadcast day on many channels, because they make the owners and stockholders money, violence, cruelty, abuse, laughing at abuse, anti-Government, anti-tax, no investigations of corporate behavior, more and more commercials disrupting the sense of story, etc.

They have accomplished all this by going directly to the source--legislators--and buying them off to kill all these former rules and laws. They were never popular, always hated, and our opinion meant nothing; they won by going to the levers they had to pull, now easy since they converted the campaign system itself to a big-money sweepstakes and so control the whole thing alone, and manipulated the whole thing like just another corporate task. Kill pensions and shift them all to employer-funded accounts, make them pay for more and more of formerly-covered medical/insurance costs--on and on, easy.

I think we would all do well to think of some real, serious attempts at solutions, and not the same lazy, stupid "why didn't you stop it" "why don't you just..." crap. This is a very grim situation. I don't know what we can do, since we have absolutely no power next to big-money corporate corruption.

[BurtWorm]

78. You're expressing very well a lot of the same things I've been thinking about lately.

I've been thinking particularly about what the Situationists in France used to call the Spectacle--the illusion, created by government and corporations and proliferated by the media, that there is a unified "nation," run by "consensus," and that the leaders of these branches of authority are all acting in the alleged "public interest." In fact, as you seem also to have grasped, this is all bullshit. Americans like to believe that the "founding principles of the constitution" and the "social contract" are actual, concrete entities, and we are all part of the great American chain of being, stemming from the sacred age of Washington, which our corporate and government leaders, in their wisdom, are tending to and preserving all to our benefit, as we can plainly see each night on our TV screens when our great American pundits tie it all together for us.

What bullshit!

[global1]

30. My Mother Has Two TV's Hooked Up To Digital......

one in her living room and the other in the kitchen. She doesn't have a roof top antenna - so I had to purchase two digital antenna - the flat looking type. Her reception leaves a lot to be desired. Constant pixilization and no signals. One might work good - the other in the other room is out. I continually have to go over and re-scan her digital boxes - because she loses stations. She is totally frustrated but won't give in to going to cable or letting me buy it for her.

She did point out to me however, that the commercials seem to always be clear and loud. No pixilization or loss of signal when they are on. I didn't believe her at first until I spent an evening with her and it proved out to be true.

My guess is that this is part of the plan to get everyone to ultimately switch to pay TV.

Get the public frustrated enough about it and they will give in.

It is interesting to note that since the digital transformation - no media outlet or newspaper has done and evaluation of people's feelings about digital. Seems to me that they don't want the masses to know that this changeover is very problematic.

[BurtWorm]

31. Is that true? The commercials come in clearer than the main content?

I mean, commercials have always been LOUDER than regular content, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least!

[StarfarerBill]

32. On the networks, yes. On PBS and the independents, far worse.

[Obamanaut]

33. Outside antenna here, the converter box didn't work. We never got more

than two channels anyway, so loss of teevee was not a great loss

No cable, no dish. Now it's music, netflix, and reading - ever since Feb. It's all good.

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. Yes. Picture quality a million times better, and DOZENS of addn'l channels. But youll still need an

antenna and the bigger and higher up, the better. Your distance from the TV station transmitters will dictate how good your reception is with rabbit ears or small indoor antenna.

You might also look into dish network. They have a basic package for a lot less than cable. I believe it's the cheapest tv programming available in the US.

[BurtWorm]

53. I'd like to get back to free TV, if possible.

Fee TV makes me feel like a sucker.

[Shagbark Hickory]

61. Well then be glad you don't live in the UK, where they charge a license fee just for owning a TV set

No joke.

[Shagbark Hickory]

62. Unless, of course, you are uninsured, like I am and only a mere diagnosis from financial ruin

[BurtWorm]

65. I've known that.

That's to help pay for commercial-free TV, I believe. In that case, it might be worth it.

[Poiuyt]

56. That was my experience as well - Good antenna is the key

I found that the home made antennae like on youtube work a lot better than the retail ones, but your comment about getting an antenna up high is spot on. I didn't want to climb out onto the roof of my three story house, so I built my own indoor one. It works great and I am pulling in HD signals.

I do miss cable though.

[TexasProgresive]

37. I don't live with high rises but we get fairly good reception

with no change to our antenna system. The biggest problem I see with digital is when the signal is compromised it freezes up or goes to a blue screen. With the old analog often you could still get a snowy picture that was watchable. It is really annoying to lose signal in the middle of a show.

We get some new channels that are nice. We can get CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, FOX (not news) from 2 locations. The CBS stations run a second channel with CW content, The NBC stations have one with THIS (lots of old movies and sports, one PBS has the Research Channel and the other has Create which consists of travel and cooking shows. All in all I would say it is a plus when it works and bah humbug! when it doesn't. My grade=86

[Faryn Balyncd]

38. More stations + the ones that ARE received are sometimes better. But abour half are now TOTALLY DEAD

And the stations that are received sometimes freeze, and sometimes revert to "No signal"

So it's a mixed bag for some who live on the fringes of reception areas.

All this is with a large elevated antenna.

One thing is certain. The official explanations for what reception would be like was incorrect, except for the matter of multiple band stations.

While the ABC affiliate now never has a receivable signal, & CBS about 50% of the time, PBS now has 3 bands, all of which can be received about 90% of the time.

Unfortunately, RW TV -- Trinity Broadcasting - - now has 5 bands, all of which work 100% of the time.

[BurtWorm]

68. 'Unfortunately, RW TV--Trinity Broadcasting--now has 5 bands, all of which work 100% of the time.'

Sounds like (unintelligent) design. Wingers love a good captive audience.

[nightrain]

42. it seems to vary, depending on distance from transmitter. Over the air

digital with an improved indoor antenna usually gives better reception, and a few more digital channels--2 more PBS! :). No way I would pay for cable or sat TV!

[Dinger]

44. No, It's Worse

And the digital t.v.s have only a fraction of the life the old t.v.'s did. Scam

[Brother Buzz]

47. My reception has deteriorated

I live in the former International Couch Potato headquarters town in the Sacramento Valley. I used to view Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Stockton stations with ease, plus a little Redding and Santa Rosa. Today, Sacramento stations are all I receive, and the quality is tenuous at best.

I would love cable but my dear wife gave me the 'El Tomato' (old TV viewers will know where that line comes from), "Do you want cable or a marriage?". To this happily married cable challenged dude, it was a no brainer. The bottom line; my reception has deteriorated so I watch less TV - Not a bad thing, really.

[NYC_SKP]

48. I have Dish, but I also have Free Local Digital Broadcast, quite good, high-definition.

22 stations, all three networks, Fox, PBS, WBN, some others.

Many are in High Definition and look great on a 32" LCD.

Quite enough if I ever want to quit paying for my TV selection.

[KatyaR]

49. I wouldn't say it was any better, but it's definitely a hassle.

My CBS and PBS stations seem to drop out more than anything else--I have to turn the antenna on to get them most days. Other than that, it's about the same. Got a lot more god channels, two weather stations, an extra PBS station which shows pretty much only reruns from the previous night (waste of money?) and a couple extra ION TV stations, one of which is a kids channel that I like to watch sometimes.

When the changeover first happened, the signals weren't very consistent (I'm in OKC) and there were a lot of weather-related issues. I thought we would lose signals during the blizzard we had on Christmas Eve, but I have to say I watched all day and I can't remember any problems at all, so I'm hopeful that we won't have problems during tornado season this year.

Overall, I would say it's okay, other than the outlay for the converter box and the antenna (almost $100). I still haven't bought a setup for the bedroom TV--I don't watch enough to justify it at this point.

[guitar man]

59. What part of OKC are you in

I work for a station in OKC so I may be able to help you make it better :hi:

[KatyaR]

74. I'm over by Penn Square, in an apartment.

My reception really isn't that bad, I just don't know why 5, 9, and sometimes 13 wonk out on me, but if I turn the antenna on, it fixes it right away. I just think it's weird . . . .

:hi: back :eyes:

[guitar man]

76. I know right where you are

With an indoor antenna you're going to get the best reception if you're on the north, east or better yet northeast part of your building to coincide with the location of the antenna farm. From where you are if you aim your antenna more or less toward the intersection of I-35 and the Turner Turnpike, you'll be in the ballpark.

hope this helps :hi:

[KatyaR]

79. Thanks!

I think I'm just about there, but I'll play with it this weekend and see if it helps.

[guitar man]

87. No problem

feel free to PM me if you need any help :hi:

[backscatter712]

51. Digital reception tends to be an all or nothing deal.

Either you can tune, in, get enough bits of the signal to get a perfect picture, or you get no signal or a blocky, choppy, cutting-in-and-out signal that's unwatchable.

[doc03]

55. In analog I got one channel with rabbit ears, after the digital

switch I get 17. The trouble is they are just clones of each other basically only get 5 channels ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and PBS. I think if we would have switched to digital 30 years ago we wouldn't even have a cable industry. I just wonder if it was planned this way. Now the cable channels want to kill broadcast TV.

[Liberal In Texas]

57. Reception is touchier but when you have it the picture is great.

At least 2 of the stations in this market have petitioned the FCC to boost their power. I think this is going to have to happen to all stations in the country because when you have a marginal signal (say the antenna isn't pointed exactly right) you don't get a fuzzy picture, you get nothing or the reception goes off and on. Very annoying.

[guitar man]

58. you need a good antenna

and maybe a booster amp, depending on where you are in relation to the transmitters. I found an old long range uhf/vhf outdoor antenna, probably 25 years old at least, that the previous owners of my place left in the shed and mounted it about 20 feet up on a pole with a 10db booster amp. Aiming it at the antenna farm was critical but once I got it zeroed in I got all the channels and rarely have any problems with reception.

It probably helps that I work at a tv station so I have a bit of knowledge about how it all works :P

good luck

[salvorhardin]

60. I can't answer your original question because I don't own a TV at all

I haven't had cable TV for nearly a decade now, and no TV at all for almost as long. It has just been me and my computer since at least 2003, perhaps 2004. I love it!

Putting aside the fact that I read voraciously (both online and old-fashioned paper books), the fact of the matter is that since I dropped TV altogether and got broadband internet, my entertainment/infotainment choices have been vastened.

There is literally nothing I want to watch that is not available via bit torrent downloads. Sure, it's illegal, but I don't feel too bad about it, especially since a lot of what I watch wouldn't have even been available with the super-deluxe cable package.

But increasingly, because of sites like Hulu, but also the networks themselves putting up digital content, most of what I watch is available absolutely legal. Sure, they still show commercials, but they're shorter and there's far fewer of them. IMHO, this is the way all content will go in the future. While this is sad for some things, like local TV news, on the whole it's better for the industry and better for us. Besides, local TV news is almost universally horrible. But even there I think you'll see that as local newspapers move increasingly online that they're entering the video arena as well so I don't think local video news is a thing of the past. In fact, I think local news coverage will actually become better because of this.

And then there's the podcasts. I still listen to commercial terrestrial radio like NPR and even the local classic rock stations but what's available via podcast is amazing! Almost all the NPR content is podcasted now, which means I get to pick and choose which segments of programs like Talk of the Nation that I want to listen to. And there's so many skeptical and science podcasts now that when all is said and done I don't have enough hours in the day to listen to it all.

Oh, and I think it's important to state that I'm not just a cheapskate. While I have very little money, I will pay for quality content. That's why every now and then when I can afford it I will chip in a couple of dollars to the pod and vodcasters I find worthwhile. If the networks and local affiliates/newspapers ever get their acts together I also would pay a small monthly fee to view them as well (provided they don't try to nickle and dime me to death with fees).

So I don't miss television at all. Not only did giving up TV free up my time for other interests, but it also increased both the quality and quantity of my programming options. It's more of a pain in that you need to actually plan what you're going to watch and how you're going to get it, but isn't it better to be an active consumer of media than a passive consumer just accepting what you're given?

Would I do anything different? Yes, if I ever get the money I would invest in a decent larger screen television (somewhere in the 32" to 42" range -- I currently have a 22" monitor) and build a media PC with Boxee or MythTV or the like. Boxee and MythTV are like PVRs in that they automate downloading, storage and indexing of the programming you want, and allow you to use a remote control/wireless keyboard to control the box. In the meantime, I'm happy.

[BurtWorm]

67. Local TV news in most cases is bottom of the barrel awful in my experience.

Has been since the invention of canned Happy Talk (TM) in the late '70s or early '80s, in my estimation. And it's only getting worse.

I think your assessment of the developments in televisual media is right on the money. This thread has me thinking that TV really doesn't have a leg to stand on its present form. It's just a matter of time before the public figures it out, or technology provides an alternative that does to TV what blogs (and TV, ironically) have done to newspapers.

[area51]

63. Reception seems the same to me since the switch to digital. (n/t)

[hunter]

64. Digital greatly improved our television reception.

Where we live broadcast television comes from three directions and there are high voltage power lines nearby in one of those directions. Ghosting and other weird interference made many of the channels unwatchable. We receive all the channels now very clearly, and with our new LCD television the PBS HDTV is very good looking.

I used to point our antenna to favor PBS at the expense of NBC, Fox, and a few low powered local UHF channels, and even then PBS wasn't entirely clear. I've now got the antenna aimed to cover the low power local analog stations and the end result is that we've got more channels and much better quality.

[Arkansas Granny]

69. I gained some channels, but the reception is spotty on some channels.

As long as my PBS channels come in OK, I'm satisfied. I watch very little network tv and then it's mostly for local news and weather.

[Fla_Democrat]

70. Nope, worse

Had 1 CBS
2 ABC
2 NBC
1 PBS


Have 1 CBS
1 PBS


Lost stations out of Panama City and the weaker Tallahassee stations. That is after $100-125 'upgraded' Antenna and Booster installed.

But hey, little Jimmy needs his cell phone at Kindergarten. :mad:

[emmadoggy]

71. Ok, this is my sorta long explanation.....

We live in a rural area, in a nexus of three different television markets. We also live on fairly high terrain. So first off, this puts us in an advantageous position. Next we have a roof mounted antenna with a booster and a rotor.

Overall, since the switch to digital our reception has improved. Our stations come in very clearly and we've only very seldom had any problems with losing signal. And of course, now the local stations have more "channels" so we have even more choices to watch than before.

Oh, I should also mention that we do not have cable/satellite tv. Never have (well, except for 3 months back in the late 80's, as a trial, and for 3 months back in 2002 when we were living in a transitional place in town and had to have basic cable just to get ANYTHING.)

Our only complaint comes not from our digital reception, but simply the limits of our new tv's tuner. It, for some reason, can't save our channels after a channel scan with our antenna tuned to one direction and then ADD channels when we scan from another direction. Pretty disappointing. Our converter boxes were able to do this, and our smaller, more inexpensive digital tv in our bedroom is able to do this. So we've had to sacrifice a few channels because of this, but they were only duplicates of networks we can get from other stations.

Overall, we are pretty happy with the switch. Of course, you were asking about an urban setting, so this is probably all moot to you anyway! :P

[BurtWorm]

75. You lucky country dog you!

;-)

[Raine]

72. I have cable on two TVs but also a couple extra TVs without cable that

are hooked up to converter boxes and it's a mess to get stations on them. I have to fool around getting them to receive and then a few minutes later they are getting no signal and I get nothing. I think the whole thing is a scam to do away with free TV entirely. :argh:

[earth mom]

73. It was worse with the converter box & the old t.v. but once we bought a new flat screen

and a $40 antenna we get great reception and more channels- 2 ABC channels, 1 CBS channel, 1 NBC channel, 1 local channel, CW channel, 4 PBS channels and Fox.

We haven't had cable for years and if there are any shows our family wants to watch, we watch them on the internet or get them from Netflix or the Library. We've bought a few t.v. shows on itunes, but it's rare because we can get everything we want to watch for free or at low cost.

Whenever I've watched cable t.v. when we stay at a hotel or wherever, I am completely turned off by the amount of commercials and also by the extreme right wing slant of all the news channels which seems glaringly like brainwashing and mind control. :yoiks:

[Trailrider1951]

80. Well, I'm out here in the central Texas Outback

No cable available at all. I refuse to pay for satellite TV. Before the digital conversion, I could get snowy pictures and sound from 3 Austin stations and from 3-4 Temple stations. Now, from all of the stations, I get 3 or 4 seconds of clear picture and sound, followed by no sound and a pixellated mishmash picture, and then the silent blue screen of death: "NO SIGNAL"
Now I waste time on the internets, not on stupid TV. YMMV.

[peekaloo]

83. I love that. "silent blue screen of death: NO SIGNAL".

:rofl:

[hobbit709]

81. 90% of what I watch isn't on broadcast.

Otherwise I'd drop Time-Warner in a nanosecond.

yeah, a lot of stuff is available on line but I want to sit back in my chair and watch on a bigger screen than my computer monitor.

[we can do it]

82. Some Days Yes, Some No Its Inconsistant Like the Weather

[peekaloo]

84. on a clear, usually cold night I gets 15! counts 'em 15 extra Jebus channels!

PRAISE!!!!!!!!!!

and still no CBS (I miss Dave).

[Tesha]

85. Absolutely!

Our picture is far, far better.

The sub-channels on some stations (like PBS)
are quite useful.

And we only "lost" two or three stations that we
could probably get back if we had a proper antenna
rather than the recycled kluges that we're using.

We still have basic cable (and that supplies the
several missing stations), but we'd junk it except
for the fact that with Comcast cable broadband,
it's actually cheaper to *HAVE* basic cable than
to go to "naked broadband" -- go figure!

More and more, though, we're watching TV from
the Internet rather than from broadcast *OR* cable.

Tesha

[Chemical Bill]

86. Yes

I have more channels too. But I watch a lot of music dvds, 'cause tv sucks.