Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond
What is a reasonable comparison? That's going to vary depending on what one can receive off-air, but the underlying assumption of pretty much any "cord cutting" discussion here is that you can at least receive major networks in HD OTA. And the debate isn't over the cost of duplicating that programming via a pay TV service, but rather what it would cost to expand upon this level of service.
Based on that, I think a reasonable comparsion is for the first tier of service above "lifeline basic", which is the tier that the majority of major basic cable networks show up on. And it would be for HD service, but without a leased DVR.
Fully agreed. That's a reasonable comparison and what I would expect to compare to.
If I'm deciding to keep my old vehicle and get a new one, the debate is between the following:
- Keep my old, but well running vehicle that has no car payment and minimal cost of maintenance.
- Get a similar, but newer model that would have the latest features, a new warranty and shiny new paint.
My comparison isn't going to be between a Honda Civic and a top of the line Mercedes. It's going to be a new Civic that improves upon the old one with things the current one doesn't have that I wish it did - or it gets rid of some annoying glitch the old one has developed that doesn't have any real fix.
At this point, the comparison becomes pretty simple; for the extra $50 or $60/month (or whatever extended basic plus HD box costs now), is the additional programming from ESPN, TNT, USA, A&E, etc worth the cost for you? Reasonably, different people are going to have different answers to this question. If you're a big time sports junkie, or watch a lot of the basic cable networks, the answer it likely yes, and maybe it's even a good deal for the money. Conversely, if most of your viewing is to the "big four" broadcast networks or stuff available via digital subchannels, that cost for expanded basic is way over the top.
Either viewpoint is valid...depending on what you watch.
Doesn't seem that difficult to me...
That's really what I've been trying to get across. The price comparison should be between the "more" you get with the basic service, that includes basic tier channels like ESPN, USA, etc., but likely not a fleet of sports, kids or movie channels that come in their own tier.
I think the problem is the people at each end of the argument don't see the thrird option: reduce your package and get most of the popular channels, then seek other cheaper means to get the rest of the scattered programing on channels you don't get.
As I've said before, I do pay around $100 a month, but that's for a package well above the minimum and includes a DVR lease. Where I save is by having Netflix instead of premium movie channels and I don't watch nearly enough sports to buy the extra sports pack. I could lower my package and pay considerably less, but there are just enough shows I enjoy spontaniously tuning into on those upper tier channels to make having them worth it. Further, each season, the "go to" network for my favorite shows changes, so it's nice to be able to easily shift my viewing habits. However, if the compelling shows I watch on those upper tier channels went away, or was limited to one or two shows, I'd consider a reduction in service.
That's how I do it. Some want it all at any price. Others want what they can pay the least for.
I just want people to know it's not option "A" or "B"....there's also "C".