Is There Any Way To...

[Vic Vega]

Fair enough, how many free channels are there in the US?

You understand the scale of the US, yes? 3,794,101 sq mi (9,826,675 km2)... I doubt there is a "list" of all the free TV channels... it's possible though.

 

[HAL9000]

You understand the scale of the US, yes? 3,794,101 sq mi (9,826,675 km2)... I doubt there is a "list" of all the free TV channels... it's possible though.

I always get stuck on the idea that it's a country and not a continent.

 

[Bignate603]

OK fair enough, there are about 50 in the UK, the only real reason to subscribe to a subscription TV service here is sports or film channels (although you do get a couple from freeview [which is what our digital TV service is called])

It's not really free if you have to pay a yearly license fee. It looks like the going rate for the license in the UK is £145, or $225.

 

[HAL9000]

It's not really free if you have to pay a yearly license fee. It looks like the going rate for the license in the UK is £145, or $225.

Yeah but that's just to be able to watch live TV. The fee only goes to the BBC, the rest of the channels get nothing from it. You're not paying for the channels.

 

[Bignate603]

Yeah but that's just to be able to watch live TV. The fee only goes to the BBC, the rest of the channels get nothing from it. You're not paying for the channels.

You're paying for right to use your TV to watch broadcast channels, even those that aren't part of the BBC. If you have to pay for access I don't consider it "free". It doesn't really matter where the money is going, you still have to pay it to get the service.

Even if you argue that the other channels are truly free (even though you have to pay to access them), you're still paying for the things you watch on the BBC. It looks like the BBC offers 8 different channels so you're paying quite a bit to get those 8 "free" channels.

 

[HAL9000]

You're paying for right to use your TV to watch broadcast channels, even those that aren't part of the BBC. If you have to pay for access I don't consider it "free". It doesn't really matter where the money is going, you still have to pay it to get the service.

Even if you argue that the other channels are truly free (even though you have to pay to access them), you're still paying for the things you watch on the BBC. It looks like the BBC offers 8 different channels so you're paying quite a bit to get those "free" channels.

It's like paying to get your drivers license, that doesn't mean you have to pay for each road you drive on. No ones going to argue that all roads are toll roads... They are free.

 

[Fenixgoon]

HTPC + cablecard setup. dont know if there are any really good ones though.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Fair enough, how many free channels are there in the US?

Over the air channels are limited as others have mentioned.
I'm just outside Chicago (3rd largest city in the country).
Free channels....your 4 major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox), WGN (which is usually on most sat/cable systems nationwide) plus the public broadcast channel. There are other channels, but they are usually crap with nothing but shows from 30-40 years ago.

So, as you can see, over the air options are horrid (maybe 5 watchable channels). If you are a baseball fan for example, you need cable/satellite to watch games because maybe 20-25% of the games are broadcast on 'free' tv. Same goes for hockey. Football is the only one that is always on over the air channels.

 

[HAL9000]

Over the air channels are limited as others have mentioned.
I'm just outside Chicago (3rd largest city in the country).
Free channels....your 4 major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox), WGN (which is usually on most sat/cable systems nationwide) plus the public broadcast channel. There are other channels, but they are usually crap with nothing but shows from 30-40 years ago.

So, as you can see, over the air options are horrid (maybe 5 watchable channels). If you are a baseball fan for example, you need cable/satellite to watch games because maybe 20-25% of the games are broadcast on 'free' tv. Same goes for hockey. Football is the only one that is always on over the air channels.

Yeah that's fair enough, If I were in the US of A I'd be tempted to get a satellite receiver and a dish and get some free satellite channels.... I've always been tempted.

 

[Bignate603]

It's like paying to get your drivers license, that doesn't mean you have to pay for each road you drive on. No ones going to argue that all roads are toll roads... They are free.

Bad analogy, using the roads isn't free. They are paid for by road taxes which is tacked on to to the cost of gasoline. The more you drive the more you pay for the roads.

Look at it this way. You want to eat at a buffet. Once you get into the buffet everything is free but you have to pay a certain amount to get through the door. Would you tell someone its free to eat at the buffet? A fee for access is still paying.

 

[HAL9000]

Bad analogy, using the roads isn't free. They are paid for by road taxes which is tacked on to to the cost of gasoline. The more you drive the more you pay for the roads.

Look at it this way. You want to eat at a buffet. Once you get into the buffet everything is free but you have to pay a certain amount to get through the door. Would you tell someone its free to eat at the buffet? A fee for access is still paying.

Fair point, but think of it another way, in the UK you have to pay for a firearms license, if you want to own a gun, if after paying that someone gives you a gun for free (which you legally had to have the firearms license to own) does it make the gun any less free because it required the license?

 

[purbeast0]

i have a toshiba dvd player that has free tivo for life on it. it doesn't have the full features of tivo, but it's called tivo light or something. works great.

 

[Beev]

Shit like subscription fees for merely recording a TV show are the reason people pirate. Sorry, but I watch six shows a week, I'm not paying a subscription for them.

 

[Bignate603]

Fair point, but think of it another way, in the UK you have to pay for a firearms license, if you want to own a gun, if after paying that someone gives you a gun for free (which you legally had to have the firearms license to own) does it make the gun any less free because it required the license?

It always comes back to guns with you.

You can only compare it if the owner has to pay the license fee every so often, yearly or something similar to how you pay your TV license. Let's say for argument's sake a gun owner has to pay a yearly license to own and use a gun, just like you need to pay a yearly license for over the air broadcasts. He gets the license and someone gives him a gun for free. If you ask him how much it costs to have and use his gun for a year he will tell you it cost him however much the license cost. If he wanted to have and use it next year it would cost him that much all over again. Thus, having and using his gun is not free even if he did not have to purchase the gun itself.

The same goes for your TV in the UK. You pay a license each year to be able to use your TV for live broadcasts. There is no way to claim it is free if there is an "entrance fee" that you have to pay, no matter where the money is going.

 

[HAL9000]

It always comes back to guns with you.

You can only compare it if the owner has to pay the license fee every so often, yearly or something similar to how you pay your TV license. Let's say for argument's sake a gun owner has to pay a yearly license to own and use a gun, just like you need to pay a yearly license for over the air broadcasts. He gets the license and someone gives him a gun for free. If you ask him how much it costs to have and use his gun for a year he will tell you it cost him however much the license cost. If he wanted to have and use it next year it would cost him that much all over again. Thus, having and using his gun is not free even if he did not have to purchase the gun itself.

The same goes for your TV in the UK. You pay a license each year to be able to use your TV for live broadcasts. There is no way to claim it is free if there is an "entrance fee" that you have to pay, no matter where the money is going.

OK can't be bothered anymore, if you can't see the difference between paying for a license to be legally allowed to do something and paying a company for a service then I give up.

 

[Bignate603]

OK can't be bothered anymore, if you can't see the difference between paying for a license to be legally allowed to do something and paying a company for a service then I give up.

I understand that there is a difference between the two because the money goes to different things. My point is that it doesn't matter where the money goes, if it costs money to do or use something it is by definition not free.

 

[HAL9000]

I understand that there is a difference between the two because the money goes to different things. My point is that it doesn't matter where the money goes, if it costs money to do or use something it is by definition not free.

My point is that somethings require a license, but what it costs to do the thing is a different matter to what it costs to be licensed to do the thing.

 

[911paramedic]

A long time ago I had a card in my computer that I plugged the coax into, but of course I was paying for my TV already. OTA channels are actually better than cable, if you are in range of the signal. It all depends on where you live.

When I was in the Mojave Desert I pulled in a lot of LA stations, now, ~35 miles north of SF I only pull in two crappy public access stations. So I ended up having to pay for service.

I thought there were quite a few online sites that streamed TV?

 

[Imp]

I've seen people us a DVD recorder. Not as convenient.

My cable service has a 'reasonable' (slow as shit, poor interface and response) "On Demand" streaming channel. Most shows are in SD, but some are popping up in HD now. They're usually available for 3 weeks after broadcasting, so I'm happy - as long as the channel doesn't crap out like it does half the time.

 

[Bignate603]

My point is that somethings require a license, but what it costs to do the thing is a different matter to what it costs to be licensed to do the thing.

If you have to pay X amount for a license for permission to do something you need to include that in the cost of doing that activity. You can't say its free to do an activity when you are legally required to pay something to be able to do that activity.

Anyways, I thought you were done with this argument?

 

[KeithTalent]

You guys in the USA have to pay to record on to your PVR's? At the risk of sounding like someone on this board, I don't get it.

I was thinking the same thing. I bought a DVR from Futureshop and it records everything at no additional cost. I obviously have to pay my cable company for cable, but that cost remains the same whether I am recording something or not. Maybe I don't understand the question?

KT

 

[Crono]

I was thinking the same thing. I bought a DVR from Futureshop and it records everything at no additional cost. I obviously have to pay my cable company for cable, but that cost remains the same whether I am recording something or not. Maybe I don't understand the question?

KT

Encryption of digital service (cable or satellite) makes it necessary to have a cable card for set-top box (or DVR) use.

It costs extra for an additional card. Most people don't bother buying DVRs outside of their cable/satellite company because the DVRs themselves are provided (usually free as part of a 1 or 2 yr contract subscription package) by the cable or satellite company, but with a monthly equipment rental charge (something like $5 to $10 a month extra). Most DVR units cost $200 or more, so most people here don't bother to buy them anymore. It's easier - though not cheaper in the long term - to just get the DVR from your cable company with installation.

Before cable and satellite companies provided DVRs people would buy TiVos, which was the company that popularized the technology here to begin with.

 

[Bignate603]

I was thinking the same thing. I bought a DVR from Futureshop and it records everything at no additional cost. I obviously have to pay my cable company for cable, but that cost remains the same whether I am recording something or not. Maybe I don't understand the question?

KT

The data transmitted over cable in the US is encrypted to prevent people from illegally connecting themselves and getting free cable. You need the cable box to decrypt the signal so you can't just have a DVR directly connected to your cable line, it would just see scrambled data.

 

[KeithTalent]

Fair enough. I know I did not pay an extra charge for another card, so they must be doing something from the wall to the TV or DVR. I'm a full noob on this stuff obviously, so not sure how it works, I just know I'm not paying anything extra, unless it's built in to the normal cable fee which is definitely possible.

KT

 

[Spikesoldier]

Encryption of digital service (cable or satellite) makes it necessary to have a cable card for set-top box (or DVR) use.

It costs extra for an additional card. Most people don't bother buying DVRs outside of their cable/satellite company because the DVRs themselves are provided (usually free as part of a 1 or 2 yr contract subscription package) by the cable or satellite company, but with a monthly equipment rental charge (something like $5 to $10 a month extra). Most DVR units cost $200 or more, so most people here don't bother to buy them anymore. It's easier - though not cheaper in the long term - to just get the DVR from your cable company with installation.

Before cable and satellite companies provided DVRs people would buy TiVos, which was the company that popularized the technology here to begin with.

plus when you change providers, or move, you lose everything on the DVR!