The TV traditionalists

So we've been thinking about ways we can trim the fat from our budget. (Washington DC, nota bene!!!!)

Several years ago we made the infinitely wise decision to be cavemen and get rid of cable.

Yes, I know: "BARBARI!!!!"

Well, not exactly get RID of it. We switched to the tier below standard cable, called basic or antenna cable. Basically, we just pay for better reception of the broadcast channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and those UHF channels hosted by frogs, mice, vermin, and whatever lab animal got loose from the lab last week.) And they throw in a few actual cable channels to boot: we get C-Span, TBS, and EWTN. All this for a reasonable $10 a month instead of the $53 (!!!) that is the standard cable package.

BUT we've been thinking about ditching even that $10 a month and going back to the old rooftop antenna. (And here Claudio has fond memories of sitting in his living room as a child trying to tune the antenna....just...so....to pull in those snowy New York channels from Lower Bucks County. Ah, the days!)

Ok, but nostalgia aside. I wondered, how feasible are antennas nowadays? Has everyone gone cable and satellite? Are tv stations going to totally phase out over-air signals in the years to come? Will your screen be blank without some kind of subscription service (perhaps not a bad thing in itself actually).

Well, I am happy to report after a bit of web research that not only are antennas not going anywhere, they are making something of a comeback because they are actually BETTER for the new HDTV sets than cable or satellite!

Huh? Come again?

Yep..better. Seems like the networks will be broadcasting HDTV over the air in all its full bandwidth glory, whereas both cable providers and satellites have to compress those same signals to cram them into an already crowded line (or beam).

Here's the article:

http://www.hometoys.com/article.php4?displayid=758

I think this settles it. Goodbye cable company.

Oh that is so nice to say.