Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jojo_theincredible t1_jdspz66 wrote

If I may: just because something is not for you doesn’t mean it should not exist. There are people who still use antennas to watch over-the-air channels.

31

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsrsyn wrote

I figured they do. The channels wouldn't still be there if they didn't. My question is why. I could understand when the alternative was an expensive service, but that's largely gone away.

−21

the_mighty_hetfield t1_jdssr2r wrote

Because OTA is free and requires very simple equipment. A lot of older folks grew up not having to pay for TV at all, so I can see this appealing to them.

Others want to get local channels without paying for cable/youtubeTV/directTV.

11

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdssyz2 wrote

Streaming only requires phone. Even new TV's will do it if they have internet. There is also plenty that you don't have to pay for.

−19

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_jdsuspu wrote

Watching TV on your phone isn't optimum. If you have a real TV, you might as well use it as a receiver.

6

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsv1e4 wrote

I get that. The point is that there are other options that are generally easy to get. I understand having the over the air when there isn't much alternative, but there is alternative today that didn't exist before.

−5

ddbaxte t1_jdswrpo wrote

OTA tv is free. You have electricity and a TV antenna? You can watch TV.

No need to buy cable, internet, satellite, 5G data or whatever costly alternatives you're offering.

You're asking why someone would use a free service when they could simply pay more money for the same thing...it's silly.

4

the_mighty_hetfield t1_jdsvttv wrote

Other options cost money, even if it's just for high speed internet, and are largely more complicated than simple OTA.

3

Dariath t1_jdt8h8v wrote

There are a lot of old people who don’t know how to use a smart tv. Or people who can’t read trying to navigate it. It’s much easier for them to use that than signing up for services. Besides that, I know people who just use cash and never use their card for anything. It’s that kinda area.

1

redavid t1_jdsuw24 wrote

you're going to have to pay if there is something you want to watch on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/etc, though

2

BranWafr t1_jdstijn wrote

There are many people who live in remote areas where high speed internet is hard to get or is very expensive. In many cases there will be data caps, so streaming everything would eat up all their data. Broadcast television may be their only option for reliable viewing. Plus, some people only care about local programming. They may just want the local news and sports. Why pay a monthly bill for that when you can get it for free with an antenna?

As others have mentioned, just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for the others who want it. And I'm not sure why you seem to care so much.

8

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsu60r wrote

>As others have mentioned, just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for the others who want it.

All I'm asking is what that reason is. If I knew what that reason was I wouldn't be asking. I'm not saying you here, but I don't understand why nobody answers my question and talks like a horses butt.

>And I'm not sure why you seem to care so much.

I'm just wondering.

−5

BranWafr t1_jdt0o0i wrote

I literally gave you an answer. Not everyone can afford high speed internet and streaming, or has access to it.

1

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdt8me5 wrote

But you didn't. Not everyone can afford it, but that's not most people. Not everyone lives in the city, but most do. Furthermore, OTA depends on advertiser revenue. If these people are that poor, what money are they making?

0

BranWafr t1_jdtardr wrote

I'm sorry you seem to be too dense to understand, but you HAVE been given many answers. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

> Not everyone lives in the city, but most do.

Roughly 80% of the US lives in urban areas, but that still leaves 20% who do not. They watch TV, too. OTA often is the best option for them.

> If these people are that poor, what money are they making?

Just because they don't make enough to pay $200 a month for internet and/or cable doesn't mean they make no money at all. Someone on a fixed income still buys products. In fact, they probably buy many of the products advertised on local stations.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that just because a pay option exists that everyone should choose that option. But many people would rather get it for free. I'm surprised you aren't asking "why do libraries exist when you can buy books on Amazon?"

1

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdteq7w wrote

Who the hell pays $200 a month for internet, especially in the city??

I would ask about libraries too if they were a commercial venture.

No. I never got a proper response. All I got was hate filled comments telling me how either poor people can't afford it or rural folk just can't get internet. That isn't most people. Most people aren't even watching OTA for over a decade or two. Most weren't even responses. They were just these hate messages blasted at me from the start. There was no reason for the behavior I saw from this board.

0

[deleted] OP t1_jdt4xfi wrote

Because it’s free. It’s very simple

1

LordXenu45 t1_jdsr2o2 wrote

>It would be like if people still used fax machines.

People do in fact still use fax machines. Pagers too. Lol.

14

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdssa42 wrote

I've not seen people use fax machines in mass. I've seen offices that might have one just in case, but it gets more spam then legit faxes. A lot of places don't even have proper phone lines to run the thing anymore.

−6

GoBSAGo t1_jdsybob wrote

You have got some serious main character syndrome.

Lots of medical communications happen over fax machines. Pagers are still used in places like concrete buildings because cell phones don’t work in there.

12

Select_Action_6065 t1_jdss67c wrote

“Why do they still make peanut butter and jelly? I haven’t had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in over a decade”

This is how you sound op

14

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdssdjl wrote

That's still not answering the question.

−2

Select_Action_6065 t1_jdst9h2 wrote

There are other people in the world son.

5

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdstlvl wrote

That's not answering the question pop.

−1

Select_Action_6065 t1_jdswq51 wrote

Take two seconds to think about it and it is.

Other people need/want/like things that are different than you.

Just because you don’t use/want/need something doesn’t me that it shouldn’t exist.

Take a hint and reevaluate yourself.

3

TootieSummers t1_jdsr6mb wrote

I’d like to know the source on “10-15 years ago most people didn’t watch over the air channel”

Do you know what cord cutting is? It’s not just cancelling tv for streaming.

A simple google search provided a multitude of articles discussing the popularity of ota tv.

You have a lot of “I” statements in your post as well. This tells me you don’t think much in terms outside of what you and you do or don’t do alone.

11

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsrmqr wrote

>This tells me you don’t think much in terms outside of what you and you do or don’t do alone.

Your a pleasure to talk to.

−10

willtag70 t1_jdss9eg wrote

I, I, I, I, I...

Lots of people aren't you.

"A new study from Horowitz Research's State of OTA 2022 report shows us nearly one in five TV content viewers use antennas for over-the-air broadcasts and that antenna ownership has increased among viewers from 18-49 by 9% in the past year alone — a number that grew from 14% in 2021 to 23% in 2022."

9

SubjectDragonfruit t1_jdsuv9y wrote

So you found a bunch ad-supported streaming services, cool. Does that come over your free internet? I personally don’t get free internet, and there are some that can’t afford that luxury. Many poor or older citizens don’t even own computers or smart phones. If your only income is Social Security, that OTA television signal may be their only source of news and entertainment. Rural areas are a different ballgame with its own challenges and costs.

8

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsvp3u wrote

I've seen poor people have more access to entertainment devices then anyone else. Frankly too, if they were that poor, why spend the effort advertising to them?? OTA is advertiser supported too.

−1

GoBSAGo t1_jdsysa9 wrote

> I’ve seen poor people have more access to entertainment devices then anyone else.

The fuck does this even mean?

2

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdt88t7 wrote

Exactly what it says.

−1

GoBSAGo t1_jdtib1q wrote

How do people with the least money have the most access?

1

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdtjkfb wrote

Because their life sucks, they don't know how to escape it, so they go into escapism. Tv's, computers, video games, and cell phones are cheap enough that they can get them and get a lot of escapism out of it. I'm also talking about people who have been poor generationally. I'm not talking about a otherwise not poor person who just got into a spot.

1

GoBSAGo t1_jdtlmb2 wrote

You’re really telling on yourself here.

1

MacProguy t1_jdstewj wrote

I know this must be hard for you to understand, but many areas outside of a city dont even have basic internet, certainly not affordable or streaming capable internet.

So yeah a large percentage of the US still probably uses OTA programming.

6

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdstq62 wrote

But why in the city? Most people don't live in the boonies.

−1

MacProguy t1_jdsuvfg wrote

Geezus, this concept escapes you??? OTA is free...F R E E...so if youre so inclined, or poor, underpaid, etc, this works for many people. Try thinking beyond your personal situation...its called empathy.

8

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsveze wrote

>OTA is free...F R E E

So is a lot of other things. Frankly too, I've seen the poor have more access to the internet (or tv's in general).

>Try thinking beyond your personal situation...its called empathy.

I seriously don't understand why I am being treated this way.

−2

dow366 t1_jdst0gc wrote

Most people still get their news from AM talk radio.

Not everyone has broadband in US. So OTA is all the TV they get.

5

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsthv1 wrote

I get that, but a majority of people do have access. The vast vast majority have some kind of cellular service. I'm not saying that I don't understand people watching it. I don't understand the critical mass that makes it worth it to broadcast.

0

fanslernd t1_jdsv1vo wrote

It’s the most convenient way to get the major broadcast channels (CBS, ABC, NBC) for free. The free streaming services don’t offer them.

There are tens of millions of people that have awful internet or don’t have smart phones - poor people, old people, people outside of major metropolitan areas.

This is really not that difficult to figure out.

4

fishwithfish t1_jdt2eic wrote

Jesus, here's a better question, OP: can you be any more exhausting?

People have more than answered your question.

4

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_jdsuc3r wrote

I watch quite a bit over-the-air. I consider TV to be entertainment and a diversion, not some sort of assignment where I'm trying to optimize my outcome. The great majority of the classics from pre-1990 have played on the subchannels, along with a lot of 1990s programming and into this century. I cut the cable years ago, but I do stream some shows.

I will say this about streaming: my basic rule for many years has been that I try a new show when several people I know tell me I should watch it. It just doesn't seem to happen with streaming options. The viewing market's so fragmented that outside of venues like this there doesn't seem to be a general buzz about any show, such as formed around Cheers or Seinfeld.

2

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsw2r9 wrote

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You are one of the few that have actually done that. I really appreciate you.

−3

BranWafr t1_jdt1xor wrote

> You are one of the few that have actually done that.

Bullshit. You have gotten many answers and you have ignored all of them. Most of them more detailed than this one.

2

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdt85xh wrote

I take back what I said. I have no idea why I am being treated this way.

0

BranWafr t1_jdtbidk wrote

> I have no idea why I am being treated this way.

Because every time someone gives you an answer you either ignore it or disagree with it. You aren't acting like you actually want to know, you are acting like you want to disagree with people. People are reacting to how you are coming across, which is either a troll or someone who thinks they know better than everyone else and can't understand why people don't think exactly like you.

1

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdtdxdm wrote

Telling me that there is poor people or people who live in rural areas isn't giving me an answer about the whole of tv land. Furthermore, I am being treated very badly from the start before I've even responded. Even if I was doing like you say, there is no reason for people to have such hate filled comments. I had to take down the post just to stop them.

The people on this board have been beyond rude and disrespectful. There is zero justification for this behavior.

0

BranWafr t1_jdtfzul wrote

People have answered the question you asked. If you do not like the answers, then you either didn't ask the right question or you are just being difficult. The one person you thanked for answering the question didn't even answer the question, they just said they watched OTA TV. You can't even be consistent about complaining people aren't answering the question.

Is your actual question not why people watch OTA TV, but why do companies still put it out? Because those have different answers. The answer you reject out of hand so strongly, that people don't want to (or cant afford to) pay for TV, feeds into the reason OTA still exists. While 80% of people live in urban areas, the 20% of people who don't are still a huge market. No company wants to ignore 20% of the market. Plus, someone watching OTA TV is probably not going to be able to skip commercials like someone watching online. So they get better view rates for their commercials. And, as I have said before, poor people still need to buy products. And being poor, they are more likely to be brand loyal. If an advertiser can get a poor person to pick their product, they are more likely to stick with it as long as it is price competitive. I seem to remember reading somewhere that they get better bang for their buck with ads on OTA because people are watching live and not skipping them or blocking them.

0

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdtgpxo wrote

I appreciate you trying to answer the question. I really do. Your one of like two people who has given a legitimate answer. Sincerely, you are one of the better ones but please just stop. I'm done with this post. I don't want to talk about this anymore after the behavior if most of these people.

0

LiveFromNewYork95 t1_jdsybfy wrote

It's not much bu there have been 6 times in the 5 years that I have had an HD antenna that the cable went out or something happened where I just grabbed antenna and was able to watched what I was going to miss because it was on one of the networks (mostly sports)

I pay for cable on 3 TV's (living room, bedroom, and basement) and keep the antenna in the guest room with a roku in case anyone wants to stay in there and there's something on the networks they want to watch. And when I first got the antenna I moved into my now wife's apartment and she just had a simple cable plan that came with the unit. She got NBC but it came in kind of fuzzy so I would use the antenna to watch SNL most weeks.

1

kappahelpbot2023 t1_jdt6j9w wrote

A part of the equation I don't see anyone else putting is that for the broadcaster in existing networks/region it is relatively very cheap to operate. IIRC the total cost for the over-the-air broadcasting would for many markets and stations would essentially be a rounding error and easily still make a profit.

On this point alone they would have to REALLY drive down the numbers hard for them to not even bother, and even then it would more likely just see channels in smaller regions merge or let the broadcast from the larger region take over for a long period.

1

CharlieAllnut t1_jdsuxqf wrote

It's a good question. I have no idea why people are getting pushed out of shape.

I wonder how economical it is for stations to broadcast over the air. They can't gather data on viewers but maybe it's just people who get or want streaming.

−9

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdswu2c wrote

I can understand it being economical if there is a critical mass already there and waiting. Like twenty years ago I could understand this. Now that doesn't make as much sense. You have to get a FCC license, get a building and tower, get the equipment and stuff. It's not a trivial thing and takes a fair bit of investment. Streaming over the internet is basically just renting servers from amazon. Maybe it costs more with a large viewership, I don't know. OTA costs the same for one viewer or two million viewers. But factor in the inconvenience of setting up an antenna, maybe like a tivo, and it becomes kinda a pain in the butt. I just don't know why people still use it.

−1

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_jdszgyx wrote

>You have to get a FCC license, get a building and tower, get the equipment and stuff.

The buildings and towers mostly already exist.

Edit: to expand on this, public TV where I am used to be two channels that broadcast from one tower. Today that tower transmits a public channel and six subchannels. They sold the second channel, so it's now a commercial channel with seven subchannels, and those all broadcast from the same tower. And then low power channel was licensed, and it goes from the same tower with six subchannels. So, two signals to twenty, using the same infrastructure.

2

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdt99a3 wrote

Thanks for the reply. I know there is already a preexisting infrastructure, but Im still not quite sure how it gets the utilisation that makes sense. I would discuss it more, but I gotta close this post. I have no idea why I'm getting so much hate comments, but this isn't productive. I don't deserve this. I really do appreciate you though.

0