03-07-2010 03:33 PM
We are at our neighbors a couple days ago and were watching local over the air HD broadcast.
We then went to our house and continued to watch the same content but via Comast. The OTA content has higher color resolution, contrast, details. We live on the back side of a hill here in Seattle and are 50ft to low to receive local service so comcast is about our only hope, without going the point of dishes.
I don't need any comcast fan boys to start yapping at me about my plasmas vs my neighbor's plasmas and maybe their equipment is better. I am cinematographer. I get content, color, detail, contrast. We shoot in 1080P. We tested our content on our neighbors plasma (sharp LC 52D64U) and ours (Pioneer Elite pro 101FD 50 and Panasonic Viera). There is huge difference using real 1080P of our sets over theirs, of course.
So OTA content is much better quality than comcast.
It really makes me re-think how much money we are wasting here. So basic cable is $59 internet is $43. To get HD we pay an extra $50 plus $10 per receiver, so our $80 a month for mediocre HD service seems pretty outrageous. Man one gets past $200 for comcast in a hurry. The we add digital voice and higher speed internet, poof over $300 a month.
I clearly understand most folks on these forums want more channels and are ok with what ever quality they get. We are not sports fans so 1,000 channels of mediocre quality sports content are not our bag. 10 or 12 high quality, including ABC, NBC, public channel, in real HD would be great.
We find ourselves watching more and more internet conent. So I guess I see another HD TV OTA antenna in our future. And another afternoon mounting an antenna trying to get a over the air to work.
03-13-2010 02:19 PM
03-14-2010 07:55 PM
©2011 Comcast | Investor Relations | Press Room | Corporate Blog | Privacy Statement | Visitor Agreement | Comcast.com Feedback | Site Map