On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A couple of comments on the article:
"About 90 percent of the antennas are classified as indoor," said Baker,
whose firm also tracks hardware sales and usage. "Obviously most antennas
today are pretty small and digital. They are not like those rooftop things
from the '60s but are more like 'modern rabbit ears."
And:
"That combination of OTA and OTT is reflected by some of the new antenna kits
that combine access to OTA and broadband. Likewise, viewers who toggle
between live broadcasts and on-demand streams keep their antennas inside."
Which puts a lie to the mantra about how "fragile" ATSC 1.0 is. FWIW, the
antennas I have are classified as outdoor antennas, but can easily be used
indoors, as I use them. They are small enough. ATSC 1.0, in some ways, is
easier to receive than analog TV was. I could not get away with using indoor
antennas downstairs with analog TV, simply because the ghost was a problem.
Some channels were okay, others were awful. With ATSC 1.0, some of the worst
offending stations in analog, with the worst ghost, became some of the
strongest-signal in digital. Evidently, any ghost signal from that
transmitting tower location is being used constructively. It all boils down
to, it's easier to receive ATSC 1.0 than NTSC, because you can get by with
indoor antennas more easily. At least, with digital receivers beyond the 3rd
gen variety.
"CTA's research shows 'one in five consumers say they watch OTA through an
antenna,' said Ben Arnold, senior director of innovation and trends at CTA.
'The reasons all revolve around supplementing their programming.'
Cord-cutters or trimmers 'want live TV plus OTT,' Arnold adds"
Right. Which means, they have that broadband connection too. The majority of
the cord cutters also have Internet broadband available at their TV sets. My
bet is that actual OTA-only households are few, these days.
