Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsrsyn wrote

Reply to comment by jojo_theincredible in Why does over-the-air television still exist? by [deleted]

I figured they do. The channels wouldn't still be there if they didn't. My question is why. I could understand when the alternative was an expensive service, but that's largely gone away.

−21

the_mighty_hetfield t1_jdssr2r wrote

Because OTA is free and requires very simple equipment. A lot of older folks grew up not having to pay for TV at all, so I can see this appealing to them.

Others want to get local channels without paying for cable/youtubeTV/directTV.

11

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdssyz2 wrote

Streaming only requires phone. Even new TV's will do it if they have internet. There is also plenty that you don't have to pay for.

−19

Latter_Feeling2656 t1_jdsuspu wrote

Watching TV on your phone isn't optimum. If you have a real TV, you might as well use it as a receiver.

6

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsv1e4 wrote

I get that. The point is that there are other options that are generally easy to get. I understand having the over the air when there isn't much alternative, but there is alternative today that didn't exist before.

−5

ddbaxte t1_jdswrpo wrote

OTA tv is free. You have electricity and a TV antenna? You can watch TV.

No need to buy cable, internet, satellite, 5G data or whatever costly alternatives you're offering.

You're asking why someone would use a free service when they could simply pay more money for the same thing...it's silly.

4

the_mighty_hetfield t1_jdsvttv wrote

Other options cost money, even if it's just for high speed internet, and are largely more complicated than simple OTA.

3

Dariath t1_jdt8h8v wrote

There are a lot of old people who don’t know how to use a smart tv. Or people who can’t read trying to navigate it. It’s much easier for them to use that than signing up for services. Besides that, I know people who just use cash and never use their card for anything. It’s that kinda area.

1

redavid t1_jdsuw24 wrote

you're going to have to pay if there is something you want to watch on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/etc, though

2

BranWafr t1_jdstijn wrote

There are many people who live in remote areas where high speed internet is hard to get or is very expensive. In many cases there will be data caps, so streaming everything would eat up all their data. Broadcast television may be their only option for reliable viewing. Plus, some people only care about local programming. They may just want the local news and sports. Why pay a monthly bill for that when you can get it for free with an antenna?

As others have mentioned, just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for the others who want it. And I'm not sure why you seem to care so much.

8

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdsu60r wrote

>As others have mentioned, just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for the others who want it.

All I'm asking is what that reason is. If I knew what that reason was I wouldn't be asking. I'm not saying you here, but I don't understand why nobody answers my question and talks like a horses butt.

>And I'm not sure why you seem to care so much.

I'm just wondering.

−5

BranWafr t1_jdt0o0i wrote

I literally gave you an answer. Not everyone can afford high speed internet and streaming, or has access to it.

1

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdt8me5 wrote

But you didn't. Not everyone can afford it, but that's not most people. Not everyone lives in the city, but most do. Furthermore, OTA depends on advertiser revenue. If these people are that poor, what money are they making?

0

BranWafr t1_jdtardr wrote

I'm sorry you seem to be too dense to understand, but you HAVE been given many answers. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

> Not everyone lives in the city, but most do.

Roughly 80% of the US lives in urban areas, but that still leaves 20% who do not. They watch TV, too. OTA often is the best option for them.

> If these people are that poor, what money are they making?

Just because they don't make enough to pay $200 a month for internet and/or cable doesn't mean they make no money at all. Someone on a fixed income still buys products. In fact, they probably buy many of the products advertised on local stations.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that just because a pay option exists that everyone should choose that option. But many people would rather get it for free. I'm surprised you aren't asking "why do libraries exist when you can buy books on Amazon?"

1

Red_Redditor_Reddit t1_jdteq7w wrote

Who the hell pays $200 a month for internet, especially in the city??

I would ask about libraries too if they were a commercial venture.

No. I never got a proper response. All I got was hate filled comments telling me how either poor people can't afford it or rural folk just can't get internet. That isn't most people. Most people aren't even watching OTA for over a decade or two. Most weren't even responses. They were just these hate messages blasted at me from the start. There was no reason for the behavior I saw from this board.

0

[deleted] OP t1_jdt4xfi wrote

Because it’s free. It’s very simple

1