The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread - Page 48

A bonus when my old PC died this Fall was I replaced it with an HP S5-1260 with BD player and TV tuner, $450.  Its primary use is PC but it was essentially set up for me except for attaching antenna and initial channel scan.  It came with remote.  I can still use the computer while it's recording.  The WMC guide is nice, 2 full weeks, good descriptions,  and way faster than looking online.

Cox Cable in my area charges over $80 a month for HD service and no DVR. This is with only one cable box. Add the DVR and its over $90 a month. This doesn't include the sports package that has the NFL Network, ESPNU and several others.

Study: Cord-Cutters and Cord-Nevers Will Soar to 17.2 Million U.S. Homes by 2017

This may sound crazy and i admit not knowing the intricacies of the corporate world w.r.t TV content providers : don't you think it is painfully unfair that people in one part of the world have access to awesome TV at a reasonable price whilst others elsewhere pay a lot for TV that sucks?

My dream is TV "without borders/limits" where the end user can subscribe to tv provided by anyone/anywhere (legally) and not be at the mercy of local providers who charge you as much as they like I suppose certain laws/practices need to be changed? Do you think i am smoking too much of the good stuff or can this dream be realized in our lifetimes?
Edited by whentrumpetsfade - 12/11/12 at 7:14am

I don't... I think if enough consumers start boycotting these prices and policies, that eventually an ala carte system can be in place - even down to specific shows through streaming...

What's funny about sports being the driving factor in rising pay-tv costs is that I watch SUBSTANTIALLY more sports than most of my friends do, and I pay $0/mo for TV.

According to Mediapost another 460,000 Households "Cut the Cord" during the third quarter of this year. That's 3,000,000 households since 2010

I'm sure the High Prices, Shoddy Programming and Excessive Advertising didn't contribute to this, did it?.

The Golden Age of TV was the 50s through the 80s. TV was done right during that time. But since the early to mid 2000s corporate greed has ruined TV.

IMO TV "Jumped the Shark" when ABC aired Who Wants To Be A Millionaire across several nights each week, knocking out several Scripted TV Shows. I could see through the glitz, and realized this was a cheaply-produced TV Show. Then CBS introduced Survivor which was another cheaply-produced "unscripted" series. As the years went by "Reality" and Game shows replaced more and more decent TV Shows. I turned to Cable, there were three Channels that I could rely on if the others didn't have anything, mainly The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel and the History Channel. Alas, they were to cease becoming "Havens" when the 'Reality" Bug bit them as well. I also noticed the commercial breaks were getting longer, and many commercials insulted or offended me (If I were a member of a Minority, my complaints would IMMEDIATELY result in the commercial getting yanked, but because I am a W.A.S.P., my complaints get shoved aside with the "Constitutional Rights" Spiel). Fortunately, the Prices for DVD Box Sets of my favorite shows went down, and I realized it was actually cheaper for me to get my shows this way than I could through a paid subscription. At the end of 2006 I "Cut the Cord", and I enjoy watching TV my way, with no offensive programming or commercials to ruin my viewing.

See, and that's what I have a problem with in these discussions.

The cord cutters always start lumping stuff onto the subscriptions that they would never have after cutting the cord, then say, "see how expensive cable is?". First it's "I need and other box", then 'I need a DVR" and now it's "I need a sports pack". Still others start lumping in movie channels.

Other than a standalone DVR (which you could also use with cable), please tell me what all you think you'd be getting if you cut the cord? You're not going to get that sports package without cable, so if cost is a factor, why would you plunk down for it with cable? You can still hook your antenna up to as many extra TVs as you want, so how often are you really going to need a second box? I had a second box for the bedroom TV. I found I almost never turned the thing on - and certainly didn't watch a different show on it than I could view on the main TV.

That's my gripe. You guys never compare apples to apples. You want to compare an apple and the entire fruit salad.

I pay around $100 for my service, but that's for everything except the option giant sports pack, special sports subscriptions (like Sunday Ticket) and the movie channels. I could easily save myself a good $35 or more a month, even with the DVR and HD service. Oh, and I would absolutely still have ESPN.

Cord-cutting isn't for everyone. My family and I have only had pay-tv for the last three years (Dish), my oldest son is now 20 yrs old. I really think cord cutting really works for people who aren't fanantics about non-NFL pro sports or the BCS bowls. Although the NCAA BB tournament now shows a lot on pay-tv. Anyway, you're right, there is no way out of paying something to get your entertainment from outside the "Big 4" broadcast networks (unless you enjoy old and tired reruns on networks like This or METV and an awful lot of that stuff is on Netflix or Hulu).

We spent plenty of money buying and renting vhs/dvd's during those years, although it wasn't anywhere near what we currently pay for tv. I figured out that we could get away with cord-cutting, but it would still cost us around $40 per month when I priced out all of the various services. And my wife (whose father was an accountant) says we have to include the dvr costs when we figure things out, raising the cost about $10 more per month for two years (already have a WMC extender, so don't have to buy that). I had an ota dvr and Netflix (3 movies out plus streaming) before we signed on with Dish, so it can be done, as long as you don't need to watch a lot of stuff for a year. Although with a dvd plan, you get to watch movies months before they come out on HBO or Starz.

Yes, and it's always a blanket claim - OMG cable costs $100 a month!! or something equally inaccurate, because all they look at is the rate sheet.

I pay $80 for all channels and 20mb internet with Comcast, which I think is a damn good deal, and have for a few years now. But I'm willing to call and play one provider off another when my promo runs out, and/or escalate to corporate if I don't get a deal I want. People that just roll over and take whatever they feel like charging are acting like sheep, IMO, and that's what the providers are counting on. Same for car/home insurance, buying a car, etc.

If you're not willing to deal, don't come here whining about the cost of TV.

Why are people badgering cord cutters in The Official "I don't have dish or cable" anymore thread? Shouldn't this thread be a safe haven for those who have cut the cord to discuss the topic with other cord cutters? Why do people who have satellite or cable care what the cord cutters are discussing in their own thread?

I'm just asking, because it seems rather rude to me.

Because if DVR, sports pack, or movie channels are your goal, then the cost of basic cable is still a barrier to entry. I would love to call up Brighthouse tomorrow and tell them I will give them $20/mo for access to the Sports pack and only the sports pack, because that's what they tell me it costs. They will laugh in my face and say it only costs $20/mo if I already subscribed to their basic cable with fifty billion other channels I'll never watch.

Instead, I'll pay $0 and get none of those things (well, my computer is my OTA DVR, so at least I have that).

That's why up thread, I made the post about discussing what the minimum costs for receiving basic locals in HD from a cable provider is... and the cheapest you can get that option is usually around $80/mo because it by default includes a bunch of other crap you don't really want.

Could not agree with you more.

Because people in this thread keep showing up in HotP to tell us all how paying for TV is stupid (repeatedly, even though they've been asked to stop), and there's tons of misinformation in this thread anyway. You call it badgering but it's more like correcting obvious exaggerations, usually.

No.

It should be a dsicussion about the merits and issues with it, and that includes accurate information about what people should expect to pay or not pay on either end of it. People need to know how much alternate services cost along with standalone equipment just like they need to know ways they can save on what they already have.

Touting a price point as the default for service that isn't true does a disservice to those who might consider the option of reducing the price they pay rather than dumping everything. It's important for people to know about their options, which include more than "the works" or "almost nothing".

To draw a line and say cutting the cord is the only option compared to paying an outlandish price is going to result in your being called on it.
Except I made it clear that isn't my goal, and many made it clear that they don't want to pay for sports channels they claim they don't watch. So, when they get lumped into the price as an example of those high prices, it does those who may want to receive other content any favors to think they don't have a choice.

And I will say it again - some of you in urban areas have better deals - we don't have cable and internet for $80 in my area; there are two choices, Dish or Direct, that's it. For SD service, two boxes, and a DVR it was $100 after all of the fees that were tacked on. This wasn't a rate card, it was what we had and what the competitor had, after the promos were done. I have two jobs, and bartering for TV isn't gonna happen anymore.

For HD OTA antenna, a homebuilt DVR, two Rokus, and the antenna it was under $500 for the outlay. I don't watch sports, and I buy a few shows on Amazon, so the cost is much less. I can record three channels at once (six if you count subchannels) with the best HD quality you can get. I already had Netflix streaming before the switch, but if you want to average that in, the cost is about $20 a month with the streaming services. It isn't apples to apples, but I have $80 more in my pocket a month...

I'm not saying everyone can get those kinds of deals.

Multi-channel service isn't for everyone, just like cord-cutting isn't, either.

Your individual experience doesn't reflect the vast majority of TV viewers.

Exactly. Since the switch to digital/HD, I can't get any of the major networks OTA no matter how high or big of an antenna I use. I would say there's probably quite a few folks who can't either, so that is reason itself to keep cable. Some folks are lucky enough to live in big markets so pulling a good number of channels OTA is a big bonus if you're cord-cutting. For me it would never work. Also I don't live in a major market to get the rate I do and I only have one cable provider besides Dish or DirecTV, but then again I can't get LOS so that's not an option for me. I get the rate I do because I go in and ask.

If you don't want to pay for cable and are happy without it, fantastic. But just because some of us actually do enjoy having it (or need it in some cases) doesn't make us 'sheeple' or shills for them. I'm a very savvy shopper and do plenty of homework before I make purchases or signup for anything and for me having cable is a good value.

Yeah, I asked a similar questions many many pages ago. Maybe they should start a thread titled "The Official "I still have dish or cable" thread". They could then defend their decision in an appropriate thread. It's human nature though to defend your decision, even if means continually thread farting in the wrong forum.

I suspect there are as many, or more, posts by non-cord cutters as cord cutters.

I've saved well over $1,500 now, after buying the equipment / software needed to meet my cord free life style.

I feel like we're talking over each other. You continue to completely ignore my point about basic absolute minimum costs of receiving HDTV.

I get it: you don't care about sports. You don't care about movie channels. You don't care about On Demand or whatever other service that you have no interest in paying for, you only care about basic barebones cable. And I'm trying to tell you that in order to receive this most basic of packages, my cheapest cost to me is $80. There is NO OTHER PACKAGE that costs less than that.

That would be all well and good if cord cutters didn't resort to calling those with pay TV "sheep" or blaming them for why some TV is crap.

Further, cord cutters often make it seem like it's easy or the best choice for everyone. It simply isn't.

The idea that someone might have a counterpoint or wish to correct misinformation is "thread farting" is insulting and ignores the reason why forums exist instead of everything simply being a blog or a static website: discussion.

One could counter an arguement such as yours is off topic and as annoying to some as differences of opinion are apparently to you.

If you don't want every registered member to post a response to something, feel free to start a private thread. This is the internet, not your living room.

Which is been my point all along. $80 is not $100, which is nearly $250 less per year. That $20 a month may mean the difference in being able to fill the gas tank or not.

For some, $80 is too much. That's OK.

I think $3.50 or more a gallon for gas is too much, so I try to use as little as possible by walking places that are close by. Some may not think it's worth the effort.

That's the way some think about cord cutting. With me, it's not so much the effort as I have the means to have pay TV and enjoy the various channels I get easy access to. I could watch TV OTA and do the streaming thing, but I like being able to watch a show the day it airs and there's a lot more on cable I watch than OTA. AMC currently gets my eyeballs the most.

The price not be worth it to others.

 

I agree.  Early on, I visited this thread to see what tips OTA viewers had for supplementing local programming.  I don't expect OTA viewing to equal what I had with payTV, but I appreciate not having spent $3600 for a 'digital starter' package over the last 5 years.  I like the idea of this thread, but the balance of OTA viewer/payTV fan comments got out of hand long ago.  The OTA discussion is buried in bickering about the price/value of payTV.  Once I went OTA, the price of payTV no longer mattered to me, nor does it matter that the prices quoted here aren't available at my location, or that the channel lineup isn't a fair comparison.  All I know is that the price for the level of service I had has increased, which makes the argument for going OTA even stronger today. 

That's one of the better statements I have seen in this thread in a long time. Let's face it, everyone's situation is going to be unique, and the amount that pay tv, at least from cable, will vary by region and service provider. Claiming that people don't know what they are talking about when they say that cable tv is $80 / month, or insulting them because they don't want to spend hours trying to get a better deal every year or two isn't helpful. On the flip side, people aren't stupid or crazy for paying for cable or satellite. What people do with their own money is their business. Let's all agree that we all have different situations and wants. Insulting each other doesn't help those who come to this thread for ideas on how to cut the cord.


Edited by lokilarry - 12/12/12 at 4:02pm

Having cut the cord twice (currently over 2 years) I think it's more the cults (mantra?) of cord cutters that drive people crazy. With their black and white statements.

I just received an offer from DirecTV for:

• 140+ channels
• Local channels
• Free HD
• Free HD DVR ($10 charge for DVR service however).
• 4,000 On Demand TV shows and movies
• Free installation

• $35 First year (with DVR service)
• $55 Second year (with DVR service)

That averages $45.00 (including DVR service) a month for the two years. Certainly not over $100, $80 or whatnot and DirecTV is pretty much available to everyone. Which gets you to roughly a dollar and a half per day. If you have a better use for the buck and a half fine... I'm guessing many don't. You can find the exact same pricing on their site outside of an additional $5 a month credit for the first year. I'm sure if you told them you received the same offer you'd save that too.

But do you get that dollar and a half back if a day goes by when you can't find anything good to watch, or have absolutely no time to watch anything that day?

I took a look at DirecTV at someone's house recently- I still don't see why anyone would want it. I went through the "guide" and clicked on one thing that looked interesting, and it was in commercial break. I don't pay for channels that show commercials. Looked at something else that looked good- it had a logo on it. I don't watch channels with constant logos. Looked at HBO- that was bug-free, BUT the movie they were showing was shot in 2.35 and they were showing a transfer cropped to 1.78 (I guess for those people who still "don't like the black bars".) I had HBO more than 18 years ago and got rid of it because they always showed movies in 4x3 pan and scan when I could get them letterboxed on laserdisc, some things never change.

What REALLY got me is that there were at least FIVE channels that seemed to show nothing but infomercials! I saw listings for stuff like "Advanced Prostate Health" and "New from the makers of Genie Bra!" Seriously, why would I PAY to watch crap like THAT??? (Do those channels at least stay in the clear if you stop paying your bill?) There's plenty enough of that on standard TV- I get one digital station over the air that shows nothing but infomercials, but at least I don't get charged for it. (Though I keep wondering how they get away without airing even any of the required "E/I" programming.)

When most of us get annoyed with people who pay for this stuff, it's because we think of how good it COULD be if they did it right, but since they get enough business doing what they do now they aren't going to change. It still blows my mind that they can't come up with even ONE channel I would be willing to pay for.

I knew that would be the next (other ) black and white statement. Times never change... complain endlessly about what you don't want to watch. Not a moment about Mad Men or dozens of other (beyond) quality shows and if you didn't notice the DVR removes a good chunk of your complaining.

First, it's too expensive and then when shown it isn't then it isn't worth watching... rinse and repeat. I'll stop after one cycle.

I have a cellphone, for which I pay a monthly rate. I don't begrudge my "daily" cost for days that I don't make (or receive) calls.
We have DSL internet, for which we pay a monthly fee. We don't begrudge our "daily" cost for days that we don't access the internet (yeah, like that could happen....).
We have a house payment. When we go on vacation and pay for a motel room, we don't begrudge our "daily" housing cost for a home in which we don't live!
I could go on (and I guess I have) but a monthly fee is just that.
We have DirectTv and have considered cutting the cord, but there is a lot we would miss (and that doesn't include the sports that I enjoy). It's worth it to us. YMMV.
By the way, I have an indoor antenna on a TV upstairs to get old movies from THIS, Antenna TV, and Bounce. Best of both worlds!