or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1411 of 1689
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...
post #1412 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by krisbee View Post

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.
post #1413 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

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.
post #1414 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhunter8 View Post

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.
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.
post #1415 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

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.
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.
post #1416 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by David James View Post

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.
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.
post #1417 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

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.
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.
post #1418 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by David James View Post

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 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. 

post #1419 of 1689
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. smile.gif 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.
post #1420 of 1689
Quote:
Which gets you to roughly a dollar and a half per day.

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? wink.gif

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.
post #1421 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post

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? wink.gif

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. smile.gif

First, it's too expensive and then when shown it isn't then it isn't worth watching... rinse and repeat. smile.gif I'll stop after one cycle.
post #1422 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post

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? wink.gif.

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...eek.gif.).
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!
post #1423 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by krisbee View Post

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.

Unless you're adding a bunch of premium packages you've unintentionally neglected to mention, this here would be a good example of the 'misinformation' that's being spread in this thread.

I have Dish's AT120, which includes nearly all of the most popular, national cable channels, including ESPN I, II, U & News, Big 10 & FSC (they also give me my local RSN for free, but it's only $5 more normally, as an add-on), in SD, to two TV's (322 receiver), for only $44.99. A DVR would only cost $6/mo. more (but since it's only SD, I roll my own there. I have a TiVo w/lifetime for OTA HD). And their pricing is national (as is Direct's). And that's the current, regular price.

As far as taxes, we don't pay any here on satellite as of yet, That may be changing soon, but I still wouldn't expect it to be all that much. I'd find it hard to believe that those could possibly total $44 anywhere in this country.
Edited by Rammitinski - 12/13/12 at 2:36am
post #1424 of 1689
I'd rather have American Movie Classics back than "Mad Men". Besides, they use a bug now (ironic since AMC USED to emphasize a quality presentation!) If I should DVR everything to skip commercials (and still have to tolerate the junk they put onscreen DURING shows, unless the DVR can digitally erase that), why not just wait til they come out on disc or Netflix? If I'm paying to get channels, I should be able to turn them on and watch them at any time of the day or night (the last time I had cable, I noticed many channels would go to blocks of "paid programming" during the late-night hours. If they're going to do that, then they don't get a penny from me!)

Phone and internet are different "services" since they are two-way communication. I can't talk back to anything on cable, and if I email the people running the channels they don't care what I have to say anyways.

Again, cable started out promising, but now it's just more of the same old, same old. (I've always felt that the more "groundbreaking" series would have been syndicated had cable not existed. Independent TV stations especially were more willing to take chances.)
post #1425 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8traxrule View Post

I'd rather have American Movie Classics back than "Mad Men".
So, let me get this straight: you'd rather AMC go back to simply showing movies that can be seen on TMC, HDNet Movies, the Sony Movie Channel and other channels that show movies? You'd rather a bunch of channels all showing the same type of stuff instead of a channel showing several quality series that provide competition to the broadcast networks?

Nobody in this thread would complain about channels showing the same stuff in this thread...ever.

Have you ever watched Mad Med, The Walking Dead, Hell on Wheels or Breaking Bad? I'll take those over whatever movies AMC can pay to get the rights to any day - even without commercials.

There's plenty of crap on cable, but that isn't it.
Quote:
If I should DVR everything to skip commercials (and still have to tolerate the junk they put onscreen DURING shows, unless the DVR can digitally erase that), why not just wait til they come out on disc or Netflix? If I'm paying to get channels, I should be able to turn them on and watch them at any time of the day or night (the last time I had cable, I noticed many channels would go to blocks of "paid programming" during the late-night hours. If they're going to do that, then they don't get a penny from me!)
Oh, so that show will appear on disc or Netflix 15 minutes after it starts? How about an hour later? A day later?

I can start watching a show a quarter of the way in, skip all the commercials and finish watching when the hour is up and be caught up with the show before I start running into spoilers.

Or, I can watch the show tomorrow, or the next night - it's my choice. No lines, no waiting, unless I want to.
post #1426 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Unless you're adding a bunch of premium packages you've unintentionally neglected to mention, this here would be a good example of the 'misinformation' that's being spread in this thread.
I have Dish's AT120, which includes nearly all of the most popular, national cable channels, including ESPN I, II, U & News, Big 10 & FSC (they also give me my local RSN for free, but it's only $5 more normally, as an add-on), in SD, to two TV's (322 receiver), for only $44.99. A DVR would only cost $6/mo. more (but since it's only SD, I roll my own there. I have a TiVo w/lifetime for OTA HD). And their pricing is national (as is Direct's). And that's the current, regular price.
As far as taxes, we don't pay any here on satellite as of yet, That may be changing soon, but I still wouldn't expect it to be all that much. I'd find it hard to believe that those could possibly total $44 anywhere in this country.

I have a "deluxe" package from Dish. We have the AT200 plus a 722K hddvr (works for two tv's) and the BB@Home package (20 extra channels, most of them in HD plus two dvd/bd's per week since I live within walking distance of a BB store) all for $75.99 ($77.19 after state taxes). A little lower than $80, but a whole lot less than $100. This package is pretty loaded at a decent price. The people complaining about their local cableco are right though. The vast majority of cablecos suck compared to satellite, IMO of course. wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

So, let me get this straight: you'd rather AMC go back to simply showing movies that can be seen on TMC, HDNet Movies, the Sony Movie Channel and other channels that show movies? You'd rather a bunch of channels all showing the same type of stuff instead of a channel showing several quality series that provide competition to the broadcast networks?
Nobody in this thread would complain about channels showing the same stuff in this thread...ever.
Have you ever watched Mad Med, The Walking Dead, Hell on Wheels or Breaking Bad? I'll take those over whatever movies AMC can pay to get the rights to any day - even without commercials.
There's plenty of crap on cable, but that isn't it.

NetworkTV, you'll never get through to a guy who thinks that a 3rd rate recording method (8 tracks) rule. rolleyes.gif Damn, I abandoned 8 tracks in 1974 in favor of cassettes!

After reading though this thread, I think the majority of cord-cutters here really don't like modern programming or even newer tech like streaming services and dvr's. Heck some still use vcr's! eek.gif Why talk about free HD broadcasts and then record that programming on the lowest pq possible?
post #1427 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post

After reading though this thread, I think the majority of cord-cutters here really don't like modern programming or even newer tech like streaming services and dvr's. Heck some still use vcr's! eek.gif Why talk about free HD broadcasts and then record that programming on the lowest pq possible?

Eh, I think you might be right with some of the cord cutters. But, I switched to CD's from tapes when I was 12, and haven't had a VCR in nearly a decade. And I don't watch any free classic TV sub-channels, because the quality is so bad.

I went about 4 years without any pay TV service. It was live sports that brought me back, especially my UNM Lobos moving most of their games to CBS & NBC Sports Networks. If it wasn't for that I'd easily be happy with Netflix, Hulu and OTA broadcasts. I still patiently wait for the BD of many TV shows that I'd rather see in better quality with no distractions.
post #1428 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post

After reading though this thread, I think the majority of cord-cutters here really don't like modern programming or even newer tech like streaming services and dvr's. Heck some still use vcr's! eek.gif Why talk about free HD broadcasts and then record that programming on the lowest pq possible?
That is exactly right, more than one person has said anything done on TV after the 80s sucks and we have folks saying all they watch is OTA and DVDs.

Which is all fine (if incorrect on the TV argument IMO), but then they want to tell the rest of us that we're wasting our money on pay TV. Over and over again. That's when the arguments start.
post #1429 of 1689
My cable company offers the subchannels in their lineup, all the ones available OTA. Very painful to watch them in SD after watching the majority of programs in HD. Plus I saw most of it first-run years ago and really don't care to watch them again. And I really disagree with there being nothing since the '80's worth watching. 24, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Farscape to name a few and now there's Mad Men, Walking Dead, Person of Interest plus fantastic shows on the premiums like Dexter, Game of Thrones, Californication and many more. Honestly TV, at least for me, has never been better.
post #1430 of 1689
My "deal" on cable runs out next spring so I'll see what kind of customer retention deals they offer. If none, because they are hinting at encrypting basic thus making my computer based tuners unusable I might as well walk and play "provider roulette" like everyone else. Or forget about TV except for streaming. I'm mainly a movie buff anyway and there is no OTA here.
post #1431 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post

After reading though this thread, I think the majority of cord-cutters here really don't like modern programming or even newer tech like streaming services and dvr's. Heck some still use vcr's! eek.gif Why talk about free HD broadcasts and then record that programming on the lowest pq possible?
I wouldn't say the majority are like that - just some of the most vocal ones.

I think, for the most part, people are able to discuss the merits and pitfalls of cord cutting verses having multi-channel service. The issue comes up when some think of their viewpoint as a religion and start crying "blasphemy" to anyone who doesn't agree.

It sometimes feels like the BD vs. HD DVD / D* vs. E* vs Cable / Plasma vs. LCD vs. Projection folks have run out of steam and need a new topic to get hot under the collar about.
post #1432 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

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.

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.

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...
post #1433 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post

After reading though this thread, I think the majority of cord-cutters here really don't like modern programming or even newer tech like streaming services and dvr's. Heck some still use vcr's! eek.gif Why talk about free HD broadcasts and then record that programming on the lowest pq possible?

Not necessarily. Now it's your turn to overgeneralize, just as others have accused the cord cutting advocates of doing.

I bought one of the first HD DVRs that came out in 2003, and love having the ability to timeshift. While there's a cool nostalgia factor associated with old video gear (heck, who needs VHS when we can go all the way back to EIAJ 1/2" open reel video!), I have little desire to go back to actually using the stuff, even though it was pretty amazing in its time.

I enjoy a number of current series, as well as some older ones. But I'm not much into sports, so I neither want or need to pay for the sports channels. And I definitely do not like reality TV, which is even more prevalent on basic cable than it is on broadcast TV (although it's plenty bad on broadcast) -- and the idea of subsidizing the likes of Honey Boo Boo through subscription fees is pretty unappealing to me. Yeah, there are some decent basic cable shows -- but not enough of them to be worth the money to me.

So, no, cord cutters aren't necessarily just folks who think that it's been downhill since "Leave it to Beaver" left first run...
post #1434 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

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.
Quote:
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".
post #1435 of 1689
I should proably add to the above, that cost of broadband internet shouldn't be lumped into the cost of TV. It opens up too many variables:

- Many people likely keep their broadband service when cutting the cord. So, it's a cost you still pay even without pay TV.
- Some people lose the package discount on internet service, so the overall savings is less.
- Others might increase their broadband speed to allow better streaming results, which negates some savings.
- Still others might also reduce their broadband services as they are ditching TV completely and have no use for streaming.

One example at opposite ends of the spectrum is my sister:

At one point, she had a top of the line pay TV package that included everything offered along with top tier internet service.

When she moved to her current place, a massive delay in getting a cable install appointment made her suddenly realize she wasn't missing TV during the week without it, including no antenna for OTA. She called up and cancelled her install appointment, never bothered to install an antenna and only got basic broadband service since she doesn't have any desire to watch stuff via streaming. She occasionally buys movies or TV box sets, but still pays far less than I do when I include pay TV, Netflix and my faster broadband.

That's a big step most might not be willing to make, especially not even using an antenna and only having about 1.5Mb/s internet (which was still pretty fast several years ago). I certainly couldn't go that far with it.
post #1436 of 1689
Here are my options with Cox Cable.

A: The lifeline cable service that just includes locals for $20 a month. I can get more channels for free with my antenna.
B: $70 a month for standard definition cable. Channels 2-70.
C: High definition cable with no DVR for $80 a month. Add the DVR and the package that contains the NFL Network and the price jumps up to $95 a month.

Neither one of them is worth it to me. The only sport I watch is football and I don't need the sports channels 8 months out of the year. I also do not want to support crap like Honey Boo Boo, The Jersey Shore, The Kardashians, and other reality shows. TV would be so much better if people didn't support this crap.

When I said the Golden age of TV was the 50's thru the 80's That doesn't mean there aren't any good shows after this. But TV was done right during this time.

I use my VCR to copy standard definition shows off of MeTV which is a standard definition channel. Since the beginning of this year I have copied the first 7 seasons of The Beverly Hillbillies on VHS. This is the only way I can add them to my library because there isn't an official DVD release of this show. I have a lot of TV shows and movies on VHS that hasn't been released on DVD or Blu-Ray.

Give me The Beverly Hillbillies in SD than any reality show in HD anyday.
post #1437 of 1689
Quote:
Cable Viewership Again for the Week Ending December 9, 2012
Categories: Cable TV Show Ratings - Weekly Top 25

1 NFL REGULAR SEASON L ESPN Mon 08:30P-11:45P 16209
2 NFL REGULAR SEASON GAME NFLN Thu 08:30P-11:30P 6755
3 DUCK DYNASTY A&E Wed 10:00P-11:01P 6452
4 HEISMAN TROPHY L ESPN Sat 08:00P-09:08P 4902
5 AUSTIN & JESSIE & ALLY NY DSNY Fri 08:00P-09:00P 4807
6 SpongeBob NICK Sat 10:00A-10:30A 4791
7 SPORTSCENTER: L ESPN Mon 11:45P-01:00A 4758
8 RIZZOLI & ISLES TNT Tue 09:00P-10:00P 4752
9 Gold Rush DISC Fri 09:00P-10:01P 4707
10 Sons Of Anarchy FX Tue 10:00P-11:31P 4655
11 SpongeBob NICK Thu 08:00P-08:30P 4610
12 SECRET OF THE WINGS DSNY Sun 07:00P-08:20P 4316
13 Storage Wars A&E Tue 09:30P-10:00P 4302
14 SATURDAY MOVIE: DESPICABLE ME FAM Sat 08:00P-10:03P 4281
15 SpongeBob NICK Sat 10:30A-11:00A 4140
16 SpongeBob NICK Sat 09:30A-10:00A 3924
17 SPONGEBOB TRUTH OR SQUARE NICK Thu 07:00P-08:00P 3886
18 Big Bang Theory, THE TBSC Tue 09:30P-10:00P 3803
19 Storage Wars A&E Tue 09:00P-09:30P 3723
20 SPONGEBOB NICK Sun 10:30A-11:00A 3709
21 Phineas and Ferb DSNY Fri 09:00P-09:30P 3704
22 NCIS USA Sun 08:00P-09:00P 3658
23 HALL ORIGINAL MOVIE HALL Sun 08:00P-10:00P 3639
24 DUCK DYNASTY A&E Wed 11:01P-11:31P 3622
25 Big Bang Theory, THE TBSC Tue 09:00P-09:30P 3621

Besides Monday Night Football I don't see much quality.
post #1438 of 1689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

Besides Monday Night Football I don't see much quality.
Even that depends on the week. the MNF games this season have been hit or miss.
post #1439 of 1689
First time in recorded history that The Beverly Hillbillies and quaility have been used in the same sentence!
wink.gif


I do hear some say the 50-60-70's were the golden age of TV but if you look back there was just as much bad crap on then as there is now. Its just one remembers the better shows and tends to forget the crap.
post #1440 of 1689
Gotta say I've given "The Beverly Hillbillies" a chance, but it's just awful. That said, there are a few good (not dollar-store quality) DVD releases of it. Me-TV is a joke- it recently moved to a full-power station here and not only does it have an annoying bug but they also put "Sacramento" under it all the time so we always know what city it's coming from! Flipped past "Star Trek" on it last night, I don't think any episode of that took place in Sacramento!

Those cable ratings are interesting- always wondered what people actually watch on it. Figures some of the top-rated shows are bug and commercial infested reruns of network shows, generally the list shows the taste of people who throw their money away on this. Cable shouldn't even HAVE ratings anyways- as long as people pay for certain channels, that should be enough of a show of support. If they wanted an accurate count of who's watching what, they should send a questionnaire to every paying subscriber, not just those selected to participate in the ratings. (The broadcast ratings system has been flawed forever, but that's another topic.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread