HDTV Almanac - A New Approach to Cord-Cutting

[alfredpoor]

“Cutting the cord” is the term that analysts have given to the growing movement of consumers who have disconnected themselves from the traditional utilities. At first, it meant users who got rid of landline telephone service and rely instead solely on cell phones. Now it also applies to folks who are now watching so much [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/07/hdtv-almanac-a-new-approach-to-cordcutting.php]Read Column[/url]

[BobDiaz]

Back when my cable company keep raising prices every year by a double digit percent, yet inflation was less than 1/2 the cable increase, I cut the cord to my cable connection and went 100% over the air. In the end, I discovered that I really didn't need those extra channels after all. I've been cable free for 20 years and very happy with over the air.

So now the idea is to cut over the air broadcasting? I'm sure the cable companies will love that plan and you think that 12% --> 18% rate increases each year are bad, just wait until they get rid of over the air TV. What's to stop them from price gouging?

I had a friend who thought that over the air broadcasting is useless and everyone should subscribe to cable or satellite. He felt that way until he fell on hard times and now he sings a different tune.

[Roger Halstead]

Although the term "cutting the cord" is a "catchy phrase" and certainly seems appropriate for cutting the telephone cord. Getting rid of cable would also be appropriate if it were not being replaced by an even larger cord, the Internet. The term loses something when going from cable to the Internet. You are merely moving from one cord to another much larger one, but moving "To" the internet for anything is certainly not cutting a cord. If I put my telephone service on the Internet I'd actually be gaining a cord. Then all I have to do is look at the mass of cables used to tie the computers and internet access equipment together.

It's certainly a catchy phrase, but it seems to lose something in the face of reality.

[720pete]

New Jersey may have no other choice but to sell off their UHF spectrum, and possibly the network. The state is so strapped for cash and there's plenty of finger-point to go around as to the reasons why.

Having said that, I'm not so sure the state needs four separate TV transmitters in Montclair, New Brunswick, Trenton (Lawrenceville) and Camden to achieve the coverage they want. I can pick up three of those transmitters quite easily from central Bucks County with a modest roof-top UHF antenna.

Another possibility would be for NJPT to lease out bits - let other broadcasters use some of their 19.39 Mb/s, instead of carrying three multicast services. I suggested this approach over ten years ago for cash-starved smaller market TV stations who were considering going off the air entirely, instead of forking over the $$ to convert to digital. In some markets, this is already being done.

Believe it or not, there aren't that many states that maintain and operate their own public TV networks. New Jersey is in the minority here. Right now, it is being viewed as an expensive luxury, and I don't expect it to survive in its present form for much longer.

[alfredpoor]

Hmmm... interesting point, Pete. I can think of North Carolina, and maybe Vermont? Do you know where there's a list of state-owned public television networks?

Alfred