Back to roof top antenna for TV

newbie308

Lower my FIOS bill from $150 per month to $55 per month. That was my goal. Yesterday, my two year contract with FIOS ended, and I decided to cancel my landline telephone and FIOS television services. I invested $250 into a very large 60 mile range rooftop antenna (VHF-L, VHF-H, UHF, & FM), antenna rotator, and mounting hardware. My new antenna resides 30 feet above ground anchored to the chimney, and allows me to tune in 28 digital HD stations for free!

I remember when cable first debuted. The lure was commercial free television and a clear signal for $15 per month. Now instead of $15 per month for "no commercials" we are paying $100 per month and the commercials are back! If you want HD, that costs even more! Piss on them all. Netflix is $8 per month, and I can stream unlimited movies directly to my television from the internet with no commercials. My kids aren't happy with my decision right now, but maybe this will get them outside to play more, and I assured them that there will be plenty of cartoons on Netflix and Amazon.

The new antenna is suitable for FM radio, too! Tonight I'm going to tie in my old Fisher 600 tuner and see if the rooftop antenna out performs the indoor dipole. Hopefully the magic eye tubes will favor the rooftop antenna!

Upstatemax

I dumped cable a little over a year ago. I just kept the internet and I have not looked back since.

Saved me a ton money and I use Hulu Plus and Netflix through my PS3.

I just got sick of forking over tons of money every month to watch crap programs with tons of commercials.

On top of the cable fee, we had to pay $18/month for an HD DVR and $12/month for a cable modem...

I sent the cable modem back and picked up my own. $150 for a DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem and now I see data rates that are twice as fast from my rented modem.

chumlie

Totally agree. Cable cost is crazy nowdays. I clipped mine last year and saved $100 a month.

newbie308

I wanted to do this over a year ago, but I was locked into a two year contract with FIOS. I also investigated Comcast (Xfinity) for lower rates, but once the introductory offer expires, the cost was the same as FIOS. No deal! My next step is a Verizon wireless hotspot for $30 per month, but I don't want to deal with dropped signals in the middle of a streaming movie!

billbillw

Been doing the same thing for the last few years. If you still need DVR, you can usually find used Tivo Series 3 or Tivo HD (not the Premier versions) pretty cheap on Ebay. Slap a 1TB drive in them and you have a pretty usefull DVR (over 100 hrs of HD) box. They can stream Netflix also. Tivo fees are pretty cheap IMO.

Unfortunately, the new house we bought is in the shadow of a mountain and will not receive the OTA signals, even with a mega antenna. So, I'll reluctantly be going back to either Comcast or satellite. No Fiber services in the neighborhood yet.

dkg999

About 3 yrs ago I decided there wasn't anything on cable TV that was worth $100 plus a month. I kept the highest bandwidth subscribtion to cable internet at $60 per month and use Netflix and HuluPlus when I want to watch TV. I use a ClearStream 4 antenna from Antenna's Direct for local channels and can pull in Chicago and Wisconsin TV stations just fine. I think cable TV is going the same direction as land-line telephones, i.e. they are becoming non-relevant.

newrival

Same here. Two years ago I made the switch. I built an HTPC and utilize dual antennas and a stardust Homerun HD. Windows Media Center is the best DVR and channel interface out there (more useful, more intuitive, and better looking than comcast, tivo, etc.). It's awesome. I use the Xbox360 as a windows media extender and can stream any DVR'ed or live programing through it to the other room. Add to that the fact that any other programming can be found online, and cable starts to lose its appeal very quickly.

Polkersince85

Just make sure you have the antenna properly grounded. 30 feet above ground is a good lightning rod. You're getting real HD now, congrats.

tonyb

What ?? No cooking shows ?? Blasphemy I tell ya.

rooftop59

tonyb wrote: »

What ?? No cooking shows ?? Blasphemy I tell ya.

Yep that's one of the main reasons we still have directv. Our contracts up in November so we will discuss it but I can predict the outcome of that conversation.

BlueFox

I need to do that also. I do not even watch TV anymore, but keep paying Comcast $90/month. Duh! :rolleyes:

obieone

rooftop59 wrote: »

Yep that's one of the main reasons we still have directv. Our contracts up in November so we will discuss it but I can predict the outcome of that conversation.

There are a TON of cooking shows on Hulu, and youtube. Just sayin.

I cancelled DTV a year ago, and haven't looked back.
Signed up w/ Amazon prime($79/ yr), and between them and YT I keep myself amused.:cool:

mrbigbluelight

Over our local OA, we can pick up Discovery/History/4 PBS channels; good enough for me.
Network shows aren't worth watching, IMO. Network news ? Hmmpf.

Youtube is a great source of entertainment.

newbie308

tonyb wrote: »

What ?? No cooking shows ?? Blasphemy I tell ya.

My wife used to watch Alton Brown "Good Eats" religiously, but now she mostly references America's test kitchen on the internet. I can't complain, because the results are quite tasty!

Drenis

It feels weird knowing that most of you are probably a bit older then me (26) and have since rid yourselves of cable TV. Yet, I have a full HD cable package and can't imagine life without it JUST utilizing Internet. Too much stuff I enjoy watching. Perhaps I don't know what sources really are out there that caters to the person who wants freedom of a expensive cable feed.

Right now I'm paying $120-130 ($10 for NHL channel during the season) for my cable & internet. I don't think it's financially in my favour to cut my cable and utilize a higher internet package for what we watch. And we hardly watch movies...which is a shame

However, I want to do some research to see what options are around here for OTA service.

Willow

Joined your club as of May 24 we will no longer have cable. Kept the cable company for internet home phone and cell, but like others, why pay $80 mth for nothing. Wish someone would pay me $80 mth to do nothing. can't wait to start saving some cash. If anything I might upgrade our internet package.

Willow

Drenis wrote: »

It feels weird knowing that most of you are probably a bit older then me (26) and have since rid yourselves of cable TV. Yet, I have a full HD cable package and can't imagine life without it JUST utilizing Internet. Too much stuff I enjoy watching. Perhaps I don't know what sources really are out there that caters to the person who wants freedom of a expensive cable feed.

Right now I'm paying $120-130 ($10 for NHL channel during the season) for my cable & internet. I don't think it's financially in my favour to cut my cable and utilize a higher internet package for what we watch. And we hardly watch movies...which is a shame

However, I want to do some research to see what options are around here for OTA service.

If you can wait a couple hours or a day you can access most stuff on the web. as for hockey I think CBC offers OTA HD!

disneyjoe7

I been on an OTA antenna for over a 1 1/2 now, and don't really miss cable / satellite channels. If anyone needs an antenna since channels 2 to 6 are not usaully used for todays digital channels "Highband VHF/UHF" antenna are smaller and easlier to install http://antennacraft.net/Antennas/AntennasHBU.html I'm using a HBU33 in my attic.

oldmodman

Since it is (now) nearly impossible to steal cable my neighbors and I did the next best thing.

I got the fanciest, most loaded cable contract and three DVR/HD boxes. Then just ran the cables to my neighbor's houses and split the bill three ways. Now we are each paying $39.58 per month. Even if they run a resistance trace on me it will show up as the exact same length of cable. I had their runs sent to the very back of my house, so when I re-ran them to the neighbor's houses the runs were actually six feet shorter, which is just coiled up in their attics.
Plus I have a HiGain TV antenna on a 50 foot Ham radio mast with a CD rotator. Real transmitted HD sure looks better than what comes down the cable.

MrDHEJ

Been free for over 5 years now. I miss not being able to watch the MotoGP races, but the amount of money I've saved since has payed off my house that much quicker.

tonyb

rooftop59 wrote: »

Yep that's one of the main reasons we still have directv. Our contracts up in November so we will discuss it but I can predict the outcome of that conversation.

I too thought about going over the air to save some coin, but cable has done a good job of producing shows that get you hooked. The wife loves those stupid House wifes of Jersey. Then there's Dexter, Game of thrones, Shameless, Madmen, Californication. People love unfiltered shows and for the life of me can't figure out why regular TV couldn't do it. Then of coarse you have the on demand movies too. Sure, some of this stuff you can get on the internet, but thats also creating another headache. More wifi, limited access of material, some not in real time. Can get aggravating for women not so techy. Plus if internet goes down, so does your TV, aside from local channels anyway. The wife likes simple at home, heaven knows her job is stressfull enough during the day. She doesn't want to come home and battle the media too.

I have a feeling once enough users start converting their TV watching to internet based, you'll see prices go north and before long you'll be paying cable prices.

WilliamM2

I can only pick up two channeles over the air, I live in a valley, FM reception sucks too. But basic cable is only $19.95 a month, I get about 20 channels, 7 or 8 in HD. There's nothing on TV worth paying $100 a month for.

tonyb

WilliamM2 wrote: »

There's nothing on TV worth paying $100 a month for.

Your opinion, but obviously millions of people think otherwise. Personally, I tend to agree, but wish free tv had the same programing that some cable channels do. I mean, didn't the FCC regulate over the air yet let cable get away with soo much more ? Now why is that ?

gudnoyez

We downgraded from full blown cable, to basic Cable and Internet, we got high speed internet and stream stuff from Netflix, Hulu, and others lots of choices, a $80 cable Bill is better than $160 Bill, plus with the money saved, I can buy more Tunes!!!

WilliamM2

tonyb wrote: »

Your opinion, but obviously millions of people think otherwise. Personally, I tend to agree, but wish free tv had the same programing that some cable channels do.

So do I, that's why I still have some cable channels, for a little more variety. I was paying much more for the better package, but found I only watched 2 or 3 of those channels. Decided it wasn't worth $100 when I didn't watch 95% of the channels they included.

tonyb

Wouldn't ala carte channel selection in packages keep customers happy and loyal ? Better to have some money than none at all from those seeking lower cost solutions.

BlueFox

tonyb wrote: »

I mean, didn't the FCC regulate over the air yet let cable get away with soo much more ? Now why is that ?

Probably because customers have to make a conscious decision to have cable, but all you need is a TV and antenna to receive OTA TV.

"Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. "

"Cable subscribers may request a "lockbox" from cable operators to prevent viewing of any channel on which objectional programming may appear. Cable operators are required to make lockboxes available for sale or lease to customers who request them."

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolution-cable-television#sec27

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

Probably because customers have to make a conscious decision to have cable, but all you need is a TV and antenna to receive OTA TV.

"Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. "

"Cable subscribers may request a "lockbox" from cable operators to prevent viewing of any channel on which objectional programming may appear. Cable operators are required to make lockboxes available for sale or lease to customers who request them."

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolution-cable-television#sec27

Oh c'mon man, a conscious decision ? Don't you need the same to buy a tv ? LOL !! Lockboxes...who here has one ? Don't tv's come with channel blocking these days ?

Really, I want to know the whole purpose of cable programing and why over the air can't do what cable does as far as content goes.

BlueFox

tonyb wrote: »

Oh c'mon man, a conscious decision ? Don't you need the same to buy a tv ? LOL !! Lockboxes...who here has one ? Don't tv's come with channel blocking these days ?

Really, I want to know the whole purpose of cable programing and why over the air can't do what cable does as far as content goes.

Okay. Let's try this. If you cannot understand this then you can do your own Google searchs.

"The FCC's regulatory powers extend only to over-the-air broadcasters, who transmit their programs via the publicly owned spectrum. In order to obtain the FCC's permission to use slivers of that spectrum, broadcasters agree to abide by the commission's rules, which include indecency standards. Cable, on the other hand, travels to American homes via privately built and maintained hardware. (The same goes for satellite services like the DISH Network, whose orbiting hardware is privately launched.) So, cable channels needn't strike a bargain with the FCC in order to operate.

The legal logic of this double standard is that over-the-air broadcasts are inescapable—if you have a television with a functioning antenna, you're bound to pick up NBC, CBS, and ABC. Cable service, on the other hand, requires a monthly fee. Paying your monthly cable bill is tantamount to acknowledging that you know what you're getting into, bad words and all. A sensitive viewer who doesn't want to risk peeking at an episode of HBO's raunchy Real Sex series can simply decide not to get cable. For easily offended types who can't imagine life sans ESPN, the FCC recommends asking the cable provider for a "lockbox," which blocks out whatever channels a household deems dangerous."

[bold emphasis mine]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/can_the_fcc_regulate_hbo.html

boston1450

i got rid of cable/direct tv in 2004 since then i have bought 1000's of dvd's with the money i have saved..i listen to more music which"i"prefer.leaves us more time doing quality things thats good for the soul....tv has gone downhill in lots of areas....i have 2 tv fair sizes in each house and neither have service. rip off.i get 10 channels for free in the woods and in the intown house.daughter has netflix account. i guess if its your thing its all good. instead of sitting on my butt i go for walks. ride the harley. go fishing. go site seeing. listen to music. seems like a better quality than the couch.a good movie on a rainy day works though. lol.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

The legal logic of this double standard is that over-the-air broadcasts are inescapable?if you have a television with a functioning antenna, you're bound to pick up NBC, CBS, and ABC. Cable service, on the other hand, requires a monthly fee. Paying your monthly cable bill is tantamount to acknowledging that you know what you're getting into, bad words and all. A sensitive viewer who doesn't want to risk peeking at an episode of HBO's raunchy Real Sex series can simply decide not to get cable. For easily offended types who can't imagine life sans ESPN, the FCC recommends asking the cable provider for a "lockbox," which blocks out whatever channels a household deems dangerous."

[bold emphasis mine]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/02/can_the_fcc_regulate_hbo.html

I get all that my man, public airwaves/ private cables. But the idea that public airwaves are inescapable....channel block on the tv would solve that. Wouldn't the fact that when one buys a tv, thats tantamount to acknowleging what your getting into ? Do people really buy tv's these days just for local channels ? I dunno man, I like the unfiltered tv europe has even though some of it is raunchy as all hell, but if you could block it out, whats the biggie ? Public decency ? From where I sit anyway, the public hasn't been decent in a very long time.:cheesygrin:

Just yankin' your chain bro for the sake of conversation. Just seems to me anyway the FCC is fairly outdated in that it means to control content, but allows ways around it. Given the numbers of cable/sat/internet subscribers, one has to wonder who exactly the fcc is protecting.