Welcome to Comcast Help & Support Forums
Find solutions, share knowledge, and get answers from customers and experts

New to the Community? Start here.




online now



Back to Top

comcast HD vs Over The Air (OTA)

Posted by
Regular Contributor

Message 1 of 3

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. 




Posted by
Most Valued Poster

Message 2 of 3
I won't argue over the OTA.. it is potentially better and indeed if you can get a good signal, it should be. Like you, Antenna is not really an option for me, and unless my neighbor clear cuts his lot, satellite isnt'' either. Perhaps I am not as critical but, but the HD on my Panasonic plasma on the major channels looks fine. Some of the more obscure channels its OK, probably do to a combination of orignal content made long before HD cameras etc existed and perhaps additional compression on the lessor channels. I am still evaluationg the HD on my set using the QAM tuner and the cable signal and the signal from the Motorola setup box via HDMI. Maybe slightly better using the TV QAM tuner. Sorry I couldn't afford the Pioneer! But if that is the pricing in Seatle, I sure glad I don't live there... In Connectictut HD Preferred Xf 03/01 - 03/31 149.99 Includesigital Preferred, STARZ! And Video Equipment High-Speed Internet Digital Voice Internet is 12mb/s down, 2mb/s up Then they tack on 5.00 box for the EMCA modem. The HD Setop is included the 149 buck package. Total price 154.99 + tax
Posted by

Message 3 of 3
Before, I begin-- i am not a comcast fanboy. You said that both you and your neighbor have plasmas? That's incorrect because the Sharp tv your neighbor has is a LCD. LCD's usually are more vivid and brighter. You mentioned, you have a pioneer elite tv and it doesn't look as good, but i think you might be confused. Plasmas (this includes your pioneer elite and maybe your panasonic) are dimmer but and are more real looking.  By the way, with the money you probably spent with a pioneer elite (the best tv out there), i hope you got it professionaly ISF calibrated. If this is not the case, you might want to invest in it--- it REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE.