Wife said get an AppleTV - can't believe it - huzzah!

[mrgreen4242]

Got my wife hooked on "On Demand" DVDs using my TiVo + pyTiVo (a Python script that uses FFMPEG to reatime transcode video back onto your TiVo) and now I think she's ready for an AppleTV. Ootoot!

I can thank Comcast for putting a bandwidth cap on their broadband which pushed me to switch (or at least is pushing me to switch, haven't done it yet) to DSL. I think we're going to dump ALL of Comcast, and use an AppleTV+TiVo with OTA exclusively now.

Between Netflix (and Handbrake), and iTMS (with the $50 per month we WON'T be spending on cable) I think we'll have a much better experience. Of course we'll have the TiVo for OTA programming, which is about half or more of the shows we watch (Lost, Heroes, etc).

I'll probably end up buying Mythbusters, Dexter, Entourage and a couple reality shows my wife watches, but I can't imagine we'll get anywhere near the $600 a year that would get us even to the "break even" point.

Anyways, just excited that I can finally buy one. Just have to wait a little longer for a Sprint rebate check to get here (that was the only way to convince her in the end... it's sort of "free money") in the next week or so.

 

[saxman]

Nice. I would love to ditch cable myself and do the same thing. Unfortunately, I live outside reasonable range for any decent OTA programming. The saving cost over the entire year really puts it into perspective. Maybe when they switch to 100% digital programming in the US, they'll boost the signals so they can reach me out in the boonies

 

[mrgreen4242]

Nice. I would love to ditch cable myself and do the same thing. Unfortunately, I live outside reasonable range for any decent OTA programming. The saving cost over the entire year really puts it into perspective. Maybe when they switch to 100% digital programming in the US, they'll boost the signals so they can reach me out in the boonies

Even with the same signal strength it might be enough to get to you. Digital signals can endure more signal loss without degrading than analog. But, ya, the amount we spend on cable is pretty insane when you look at it over a year.

 

[saxman]

Even with the same signal strength it might be enough to get to you. Digital signals can endure more signal loss without degrading than analog. But, ya, the amount we spend on cable is pretty insane when you look at it over a year.

Could be. I got a digital converter box (since I don't have an ATSC tuner) and didn't have much luck with it, but I might need a better antenna. Definitely something to look into

 

[whidbeyben]

DTV range much shorter than Analog

Sorry guys but DTV frequencies are generally higher than current analog channels, and therefore carry less distance. An analog TV signal can be usable up to 120 miles under ideal circumstances, but a digital signal broadcast at the same strength will likely only be usable out to 30 miles under ideal circumstances. And, with a fringe analog signal, you see a snowy but usable picture, while with digital it's either a nice picture, or nothing. Frequently you get interrupted video streams, which are a lot worse than a snowy and noisy poor analog picture.

Most broadcasters have failed to take this into consideration, and have not built additional UHF translators to extend their digital signals into areas currently reaching analog customers, so come February 2009, mark my word, there will be millions of TV screens that will go dark even with DTV converter boxes.

Where I live, I get over 20 channels of analog broadcasts (near the Canadian border I get both US and Canadian broadcast channels), but even as of September 2008, I can only get 3 digital channels, and one is a Spanish only network. No CBS, NBC, ABC or PBS because we live more than 50 miles from the broadcast towers in downtown Seattle. Only Fox has a usable DTV channel here. After February 2009, we'll be stuck with Spanish and Canadian over the air broadcasts only. It's hard to imagine all those advertisers on CBS, NBC, and ABC will like being shut out of tens of millions of households.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Sorry guys but DTV frequencies are generally higher than current analog channels, and therefore carry less distance. An analog TV signal can be usable up to 120 miles under ideal circumstances, but a digital signal broadcast at the same strength will likely only be usable out to 30 miles under ideal circumstances. And, with a fringe analog signal, you see a snowy but usable picture, while with digital it's either a nice picture, or nothing. Frequently you get interrupted video streams, which are a lot worse than a snowy and noisy poor analog picture.

Most broadcasters have failed to take this into consideration, and have not built additional UHF translators to extend their digital signals into areas currently reaching analog customers, so come February 2009, mark my word, there will be millions of TV screens that will go dark even with DTV converter boxes.

Where I live, I get over 20 channels of analog broadcasts (near the Canadian border I get both US and Canadian broadcast channels), but even as of September 2008, I can only get 3 digital channels, and one is a Spanish only network. No CBS, NBC, ABC or PBS because we live more than 50 miles from the broadcast towers in downtown Seattle. Only Fox has a usable DTV channel here. After February 2009, we'll be stuck with Spanish and Canadian over the air broadcasts only. It's hard to imagine all those advertisers on CBS, NBC, and ABC will like being shut out of tens of millions of households.

That sucks! It's not been my experience, but I'm closer to the towers than you. I've seen improvements in signal quality as they switch (previously snowy channels come in clear) but I suppose it has a lot to do with range, terrain, etc etc. Hopefully someone at your local stations figures it out in time...