Just an interesting point in favor of the antenna...
Way back in the analog days, using an antenna often led to a pretty poor picture, and spotty reception. One of the key selling points of cable at the time was picture quality.
This has reversed. These days, both cable and satellite have bandwidth limits because they have SO many channels to carry on a limited-bandwidth coax [cable] or limited amount of wireless spectrum [satellite]. It's made even harder, because due to backward compatibility with older set-top boxes, they often have to carry the same channels in older MPEG-2 compression for their old boxes, and carry the same channels in MPEG-4 or HEVC for their newest boxes. They're trying to carry 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag, and the only way to do that is to COMPRESS the hell out of the source.
This is also true of streaming and IPTV services, because they're optimizing for bandwidth as well. They have some advantages since they're point-to-point transmissions so they only need to send ONE signal, but they still try to compress it to reduce bandwidth use.
Digital broadcast doesn't have that problem. Each network has their own frequency, and they can broadcast a signal tuned for picture quality rather than tuned for saving bandwidth. And since digital is basically a "you have a picture or you don't" situation, rather than a progressive loss of quality like analog, as long as you are getting a signal, you're getting a 100% quality version of what was originally sent.
As a result, you'll often find that the network TV programming through your antenna actually looks BETTER than what comes across cable, satellite, or streaming.
Although I now have Hulu Live TV, which includes my locals, I had put an antenna on the house when I used Sling. I actually use the antenna rather than Hulu for most live network sports broadcasts because the signal quality is so much better.
