|
|
Post by tardiscaptain on Dec 18, 2009 12:48:18 GMT -7
According to the Television Bureau of Advertising 39.2% of the SLC market does NOT subscribe to cable. You add satelite into the mix and that number rises to 47.2%. Apparently the number of non-cable subscribers is growing and they are warning advertisers to beware. I would urge all of you to support your local TV stations (and watch their ads) but do not support the greed of the cable company. Free TV is good TV. Neflix ($9/month) and official websites also help me catch up on the small handful of shows that I would actually want to watch from a cable channel.
|
|
henry
Silver Level Member
Posts: 319
|
Post by henry on Dec 18, 2009 18:08:14 GMT -7
I think it's an age thing. I'm in the 18-34 demo, and I never plan to buy cable. My apartment has a bundled basic account, but all I ever watch is 2, 5, 13, etc. A little Fox News in the morning to get my head throbbing.  |
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Dec 18, 2009 21:58:50 GMT -7
According to the Television Bureau of Advertising 39.2% of the SLC market does NOT subscribe to cable. You add satelite into the mix and that number rises to 47.2%. It isn't nearly that dire. www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/Cable_and_ADS_Penetration_by_DMA.aspThe numbers that mean something for this discussion are on the left. "Cable and/or ADS" means anything that's not directly off-air, and that's 83.1% That's still the vast majority of TV watching. That splits down to 44.3% for cable and 39.2% for anything else (primarily satellite) and some people have both. What they don't report is how many people have cable/satellite but also use off-air reception on the same or another set. I have cable, but most of my watching is actually done with a DTV box. I'd be curious to see that type of breakdown. |
|
|
|
Post by kenglish on Dec 19, 2009 10:55:54 GMT -7
Now, we just have to make sure the FCC (i.e.: Congress) does not revoke all our licenses and take OTA out of the equation.
The broadband industry says they need ALL of the spectrum to accommodate Twitterrers, Facebookers, sexting, i-podders, downloaders, etc. Oh, and don't forget the people who just want to watch (the same old) TV on their fones.
|
|
|
|
Post by dxstuboy on Dec 19, 2009 17:58:12 GMT -7
If that's true, the broadband industry can come up with a better frequency spectrum, because they whine too much. OTA should stay where it is, plain and simple. Screw broadband. What do they need the frequencies for anyway... nothing?
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Dec 19, 2009 21:12:44 GMT -7
I should know better than to say this will never happen, but I will anyway. It's just ludicrous that OTA TV would go away. I've got two big pieces of supporting evidence. One is the brouhaha that erupted over the DTV transition. People went crazy trying to get TV that they couldn't anymore. And that was only the subset of OTA watchers that weren't paying attention for a year beforehand when everyone was warning that the analog signals were going away. The other is the group known by four little letters that can strike terror in the heart of politicians - AARP. I don't have stats, but I'd be willing to bet that a larger portion of the senior citizen population uses only OTA than other groups. I don't see AARP standing by if this gets seriously considered.
OTA TV provides service to millions all at the same time. Cell phone networks do not. Trading the good of the many for the good of the few is just stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by dxstuboy on Dec 20, 2009 11:46:49 GMT -7
Not to mention, where TV is at right now is a good selection of frequencies propagation wise. Think of VHF and it's good coverage. UHF is good for urban areas. I would hate to see these frequencies go to waste just so someone can check their facebook from 40 miles away from the cell phone tower. Stupid stupid stupid!
|
|
dspete
Silver Level Member
Listening to 102.5 KBBL with Troy McClure
Posts: 305
|
Post by dspete on Dec 21, 2009 4:58:05 GMT -7
This is why the whole Comcast buying NBC networks scares me to death
|
|
|
|
Post by dxstuboy on Dec 21, 2009 13:26:21 GMT -7
Indeed. Lest we forget that.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Dec 21, 2009 21:53:03 GMT -7
The VHF band has proven to be not so good for DTV, but I don't think the cell companies want that anyway. They want the UHF band. I think we could squeeze the band even tighter without compromising anything, but I don't think that would be more than a stopgap so it isn't worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dxstuboy on Dec 22, 2009 0:30:42 GMT -7
I think somewhere down the line someone will figure out how to make DTV work with VHF. By that time, it may be all there is left to terrestrial TV. (Note, I highly doubt that any time soon DTV will go away.)
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Dec 22, 2009 22:16:47 GMT -7
If there are ever any serious moves in that direction somebody will trot out the "in case of emergency" issue and blow a major hole in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Dec 24, 2009 18:56:58 GMT -7
Things just keep getting better and better. Read this proposal. www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/24/ctia_ces_spectrum_planThis is so far beyond insane that I don't even have a word for it. Keep in mind that this is being reported by El Reg, so take it with a grain of salt. They aren't the most accurate source in the world. |
|
dolt
Member
hopping thither and yon
Posts: 89
|
Post by dolt on Dec 24, 2009 19:49:44 GMT -7
FUBAR?  |
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Dec 28, 2009 22:00:12 GMT -7
|
|
