Several source I can find suggest that 15 to 17% of US households are only using an antenna (i.e., no cable or satellite dish) to watch “linear” channels (their local broadcast stations), and that that number has gone up in recent years as people cut the cord.
However, some of those articles do also indicate (as ZipperJJ notes) that, while all of those households have antennas, they may not be actually using them (or watching those stations) very often.
Yes. I ‘cut the cord’ a couple years back, mostly out of annoyance at Comcast, and use Netflix/Amazon for general TV watching, SlingTV for ESPN and - on very rare occasion - CNN, and broadcast for NFL games. CBS is mediocre here, but fortunately, we’re an NFC city, so most of the time I don’t care. FOX and NBC come in great.
That said, broadcast pumps through my TiVo, so I don’t care if my TV has a tuner or not. I really just want a dumb display. Today, I use its speakers, but I wouldn’t care if it didn’t have them. I can attach external speakers just as easily.
The only thing I can ever imagine wanting that I don’t have with my current setup is Mariners games, and if they ever decide to be good again, I may have to start looking at ways to get those. Until then, I don’t care enough.
Yeah, watching over the air channels in Austin used to get me three and a half channels. the PBS station never came in well. Now, there are three or four dozen. With the switch to HD, one station is sending out three or four over the air signals.
Check your area; there’s probably a lot more than you’d think:
I’m not sure I’d trust that tablotv page. Where I live there are a lot of hills and therefore I get basically no OTA reception. Yet the tablotv page says there are 28 stations available to me, all with 5 star strength. I think it’s basing the results on distance, with no concern for terrain. This FCC page seems better: DTV Reception Maps | Federal Communications Commission. It shows only 2 stations in my area, both of “moderate” strength, which seems more accurate.
Actually, the FCC site is less accurate for me than the tablotv one. It shows I should only be able to pick up three stations with a total of nine subchannels watchable. In reality, I can pick up seven stations with 22 subchannels, all clear and strong with an indoor set of rabbit ears. What the FCC site does not take into account is that five of the stations in my area have fill-in translators, which I get most of my channels from. The tablotv site does indicate those fill-in transmitters that hit the “dead” spots that the main transmitters don’t reach.
If you’re curious markn+, and live within driving distance of a retailer that sells them (definitely Best Buy and Wal Mart), it wouldn’t be too much of a hassle to purchase an antenna, hook it up and try it out. Return it if your reception is as bad as you think.
I did this myself some 10 years ago, with an extremely cheap “rabbit ears” set from Best Buy, and have had the same setup ever since. Never returned it. There have been much better antennas released since I bought mine (people particularly like the Mohu brand) but with digital you either get the signal or you don’t, and I’m fortunate enough that all of my local channels hit me and hang on.
I do, as I mentioned. I use a digital converter box hooked to a 2000 Panasonic CRT television. No cable, no satellite, or other apps. Just an antenna, like when I was a kid in the 60s. My converter box even has a basic PVR so I can record shows to watch later.
TVs have built in audio and remote control which most monitors lack. There may be some differences in the inputs, too. For example, you couldn’t plug a Nintendo NES into a monitor without some converters.
Oh, I tried this when I first moved here. Got nothing. I went and talked to a guy at a local electronics store about a better antenna and he basically just said forget it, there’s no reception in this area. There are hills between me and the transmitters, and no antenna is going to change that.
Yep. The bedroom isn’t that small by British standards and a 32" TV really doesn’t overwhelm the room at all. TV shows these days expect you to have a largish screen - when I has a small one I found I kept missing details and it was impossible to read credits or read the questions on quiz shows.
Also, if you need or want to use subtitles/closed captions for whatever reason then you absolutely need a larger screen.
Why not just get a 55" 4k next black Friday? What’s wrong with large?
I read, but I do not comprehend. How can this be?!
“Small” UHD TVs, like a 32 incher, can be had for under $300 if you look around. Why short change yourself?!
Why would you want a small TV to watch in bed when you could just watch a tablet or laptop?
I remember I used to have a 14" TV in my bedroom, on one of those big wall brackets. I won it in a competition in a computer magazine in about 1990. I’m currently typing this on the second monitor on my desktop PC and it’s bigger than that.
On a TV that small, there’s no visible difference between 1080p and 4K. Even on large sets you need to sit really close to see the difference.
Yes. I got a little flatscreen TV/DVD for my bedroom because I didn’t want to spend more than a gift card I had. Now I can barely see any detail from my bed ten feet away.
When our son went to college and bought a new computer he got a free tv bigger than ours.