The Official "I dont have dish or cable" anymore thread - Page 51

Who cares, that's what DVRs are for. Now if you want to argue against snipes and animated logos/bugs, I'm with you.

There was a time when AMC was commercial free. Though I do love The Walking Dead. The good news is Amazon has episodes of The Walking Dead for a $1.99 each with no commercials. Season 3 Episodes of The Walking Dead are consistently among Amazons top ten best selling instant videos.

Back during the 90's AMC and the Disney channel was commercial free. There were no reality shows and channels had plenty of variety. Pay TV only costed $35 a month back then and canceling my subscription was the last thing on my mind.

To bad the DVR doesn't do anything about the screen clutter or when AMC runs the same movie over an 8 hour block twice and adds two hours of commercials.

 

Yeah, that is too bad.

 

The way I see it, though, life's too short to worry about things you have no control over.

Amen to that.

That attitude is the reason we lose control. Those that pull the cord, for whatever reason, are the ones regaining control and if enough do it, then the bugs or other irritations disappear. As long as sheep continue to follow greedy or incompetent shepherds we will continue to lose control. Even if you continue to pay for content, you still have some control in choosing tiers and by what you watch and making sure you get the best deal possible and still satisfy your desires.

You really think that's how it works?

Some of the lowest rated networks (like Bravo and Hallmark) have the worst snipes and bugs. You know why? Because they think people will watch them if they throw that crap on the screen.

Further, unless you're being rated, it doesn't matter what you watch or subscribe to. You aren't being counted.
...and there we are again.

Did you ever think that some of us like having all the options available, not just the ones that are OK with you? I can watch stuff OTA, via streaming or on any home video format I want - plus I have the stuff piped into my home as it airs. Those are options and I do have all the power to control what I watch and when I watch it - with or without bugs, snipes or commercials. I pay for multiple options because I get the best of all worlds.

Perhaps you also never considered that cord cutters are sheep themselves - slowly moving toward a PPV model that will charge them every single time they want to watch something via ever increasingly expensive IP services - then yank it away without warning when the rights run out.

The thing is, that's where the studios really want it to go: total control of your entertainment. If you don't think they won't find a way to suck the dollars out of your hands and actually make it impossible to avoid the commercials down the road, you're living in a fairy tale world. If you think ads and snipes are bad now, just think how bad they'll be when it's all IP based and they can insert just as much as they want - all based on what they know about you.

They've been trying to control ad watching for years and it's never worked because the hackers are always one step ahead of them and everything they try someone will find a way to circumvent it. You also forget it's not just a matter of visual entertainment, but people opting for other forms of entertainment or substituting other activities. That is already going on and is one of the reasons for the lower ratings. I'm not saying that everyone that subscribes to cable/sat is not making a valid decision, but that is actually a very small percentage of those that do subscribe. Most have no clue and are generally not on these types of forums.

I watched a few college football games on ESPN3 this bowl season (luckily, ESPN is making these available and not blacking them out). The quality was better than usual, I wonder if they have allowed more bandwidth for these games, considering it's bowl season. Definitely glad I have an option for watching them other than going to the bar or subscribing to cable.

I continue to think that if ESPN would allow me to pay for unlimited access to ESPN (and maybe the ESPN family of networks) for a low monthly rate, and I could stream their content to my computer/TV/phone, I would be willing to pay for this service. The NFL has started offering unlimited access to NFL Mobile for $5/mo on Verizon, which is a step in the right direction. I would be willing to pay as much as $20/mo for access to ESPN-produced games.

Completely irrelevent.

If it doesn't come from Nielsen, the networks don't care what aggregate data your DVR or other box collects.

Why should they care? Nielsen tells them the cheap and easy reality crap and recycled spin-off shows get the best ratings. That's win-win for the networks and Nielsen. The Networks have more incentive to produce cheap and easy junk because they know the ad dollars will come and Nielsen stays in business providing exactly the information the networks want to hear. They don't want to hear that some expensive show is doing gangbusters in the ratings because it means they can't replace it with something cheaper.

The networks also don't want ad viewing data, which the DVR can also provide. They only want to hear what tells them to keep doing what makes them the most money.

It doesn't matter what your box tells anyone about your viewing - the networks aren't listening.

The problem with this is you talk about hackers and people who have no clue in the same thought.

The same people who subscribe to cable out of habit are the same type that get drawn to streaming, PPV and other ways of watching that are becoming nearly as infested as the programs on the linear networks. These people are not going out to Pirate Bay to get the latest episode of "Pawn Store Trucker Alligator Hoarders" and they sure aren't buying DVDs or BDs of the stuff.

At best, they're going to Hulu, Netflix or Youtube where they either have to deal with ad pre-roll or wait until the rights kick in for whatever service they watch it on.

Those people that do go out for those "alternate viewing methods" aren't likely going to be subscribers to any pay service if they can absolutely avoid it. They aren't customers and never will be.

Finally, just because someone takes an easy route when it comes to TV viewing, doesn't mean they "don't have a clue". It's TV. It shouldn't be hard. For them, having easy access to the stuff without having to know where it comes from or what service has the rights to it is worth the monthly fee. In my case, I don't have to know when a show airs or what channel it's on. If I have my DVR programmed to record it, it appears there and I watch it when I feel like it.

The fee is worth it to me for that.

As far as bugs and snipes, it's no coincidence that the crap reality shows are the ones who carry the bulk of those things. Since I don't watch those, I keep my screen clutter to a minimum. Plus, I have plenty of other options to watch movies that don't air on networks that show commercials.

 

I watched a couple yesterday (more bandwidth available than they use... and it reported HD quality) and thought to myself this looks lousy... funny thing is I switched to OTA and the bowl game looked almost as bad. Complete lack of detail in the background. Perhaps they were using the Internet feed! :) 

Its not 1080p quality, but it was certainly watchable. I was able to focus on the game and not on the quality of the image, which is a real win for something as fast paced as football (watching the questionable "internet feeds" from alternate sources that shall remain nameless sometimes gives punch-me-in-the-face horrible quality). I would compare it to Netflix HD quality. I was watching on my 124" projector screen, and as you said it looked about as good as what I would have expected from cable. If the quality I was getting yesterday was the standard year round for ESPN3 events, I would consider myself to be very happy indeed.

What game were you watching that you could switch to OTA? I thought all the games yesterday were on ESPN networks.

The UGA/Nebraska game PQ on ABC yesterday was particularly bad here in the ATL, but that's been true of just about any ABC game this year. And it was free OTA, OMG!!!

Free does not mean good, and we're not sheep for wanting ESPN or anything else that costs money.

Ah, yes. I was watching SCAR/Michigan on ESPN at a bar yesterday, which was on at the same time as UGA/Nebraska. Didn't even notice UGA/Nebraska was actually on ABC. Yeah, ABC has had pretty poor quality for their games, which makes no sense considering it should be the same production as other ESPN games?

NIU/FSU was the game I watched on ESPN3 last night, and other than the quality of play on the field the quality of the streamcast was excellent.

[quote name="tighr" url="/t/1330873/the-official-i-dont-have-dish-or-cable-anymore-thread/1500#post_22772981"
I continue to think that if ESPN would allow me to pay for unlimited access to ESPN (and maybe the ESPN family of networks) for a low monthly rate, and I could stream their content to my computer/TV/phone, I would be willing to pay for this service. The NFL has started offering unlimited access to NFL Mobile for $5/mo on Verizon, which is a step in the right direction. I would be willing to pay as much as $20/mo for access to ESPN-produced games.[/quote]

But then how much are you paying per month for the phone and the data to stream? I would be willing to bet just about the price of basic cable. Why folks would rather watch something on a tiny screen instead of a nice big screen (or at least bigger than 10") I guess I'll never understand.

I already have a phone and a data plan, and would have one regardless. Moot point.

I already have home internet, and would have it regardless. Moot point.

Its cable I do not have.

Did you watch the The UGA/Nebraska game on ABC OTA or through cable? I watched it OTA in Macon with an antenna and in HD and the PQ was amazing. If you watched it on an SD cable channel then it would look like crap. OTA HD even looks better than ESPN in HD which I see at a friends house.

If you want to talk about bad my friend was watching a movie on the Hallmark channel using the HD cable box, but the channel was only SD. They showed the movie in widescreen format and there was black all around the screen. They were watching the movie in a black square.

No. I get what I want OTA or DVD. They can't yank anything from my huge DVD collection without illegally breaking into my house.

Ah, but see that's one thing I refuse to pay for. I had Verizon a couple years ago and my plan was much more than my cable, without a smart phone and limited internet. I dropped them, went prepaid and have never been happier. I would never pay for a phone plan again. Same mantra as the cord cutters, huh? .

So how has that been working out for them? HAVE more people been watching because of them? I've stopped buying Hallmark products because of their awful channel. The ironic thing is that after CBS started using a bug, they requested it not be on during "Hallmark Hall of Fame" movies. (Funny after more than TWENTY YEARS of this logo nonsense, if you count VH-1, NOBODY has provided any hard evidence of what has been gained from it. The best they can do is give unproven theories about "brand recognition", and the best reaction from viewers has been that they "don't mind it.")

If you think THAT'S bad- my girlfriend's elderly relatives just got an HDTV, but currently only have a standard-def DirecTV box. They've ordered an HD one, but in the meantime they've been watching standard-def material in 4x3 letterbox format STRETCHED out to 16x9! (This includes standard-def feeds from DirecTV of local broadcast stations that are only available in HD over the air, so they're essentially paying to watch them in worse quality than they could get for free with a regular antenna!) They're so senile that they don't see anything wrong with it and would not let me fix it for them. I've seen many restaurants do this too- apparently ESPN's standard-def feed is letterboxed now. I swear there should be an exam people should take before they're allowed to have a widescreen TV
Edited by 8traxrule - 1/2/13 at 6:24pm

 

I ain't no sheep. I refused to watch it a long time ago. Still, I adapt and go on, rather than keep griping unproductively like a child about it.

 

I did find a reasonably-priced tier from a provider that gives me everything I need.

 

One of the problems people need to get past is that satellite is a viable alternative to cable (those that are able to have it). The "rain fade" excuse doesn't really cut it anymore. Mine goes out for less than 30 seconds a few times a year, during torrential downpours. My cable used to go out everytime we had one of those, for 3 hours at a time.

Edited by Rammitinski - 1/2/13 at 6:58pm

 

OTA and looked lousy... about as bad as ESPN streaming which is saying quite a bit.

 

Don't really know, but I haven't heard them complaining.

 

If you have good T-Mobile service in your area, get an unlocked Nexus phone and get their monthly 4G plan for $30 with unlimited text and unlimited data (first 5GB at 4G speeds).  I have yet to go over 1 GB in a month.  :)

That was more directed at people that still want to watch new stuff and tend to stream a lot of it, which is the only way to cut the cord and still watch cable-based content in a timely manner.

But, if the telcos have their way, you won't have your OTA option. They want those frequencies to sell you expensive data plans. It's becoming much more attractive for stations to consider selling out, too - especially those little stations showing the very content you like so much.

As far as DVD, those could go the way of VHS where it's getting hard to find a player and replacement media for what gets damaged over time. People are all into streaming content and discs are no longer popular among the up and coming younger set.

They may not be able to take away your DVDs, but they can make it harder to get any more of them.

It might be your lousy ABC affiliate or your TV. The OTA HD feed from my local ABC affiliate was amazing. ESPN streaming is full of pixellating and skipping.

Some of the smaller stations might dedide to sell out but there is no way a big four broadcast network will sell out and go out of business.

The only thing that will replace DVDs is Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray players will also play DVDs. But if all the players went away the money spent on DVDs will be the same as money spent on a monthly pay TV bill. Gone for good.

 

Maybe not, but you can best believe ALL local stations would love to be able to reduce their OTA broadcast power bills as much as possible. Might even have to do it out of necessity someday.

 

Maybe even down to nothing, which could happen, since there are other methods to get that programming to the people now.

For the most part, "the big four networks" don't own the local stations. They provide a feed to them and affiliation is merely by contract. Even among those they own, I'm sure they've been mulling over the idea of dumping OTA and going just over the MSOs.

The thing is, there are plenty of markets where OTA penetration is very small (including a couple of big ones). Those affiliates could very well opt to go cable/sat only when they way the cost/benefit of running a transmitter. Just the electrical bill alone may be the deciding factor, not including maintenance and making sure the lights on the tower are on so the planes don't hit it. I'm sure there are also some building s in major cities that could make better use of roof space for helicopter landing pads instead of TV towers.

The fact is, while OTA is a great deal for viewers, it's a terrible distribution method. There are plenty of affiliates that would likely benefit from shutting down their transmitters and using that money to pay the cost to have the last mile wired up for cable.

The fact is, the networks really don't need the affiliates nearly as much as the affiliates need them. Both of them need OTA even less. CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX could easily benefit from becomeing cable networks - and the move of MNF to ESPN is one example of how benefitial that could be for them.

The question is, who will be first to jump off the OTA ship? It's not likely to be CBS, NBC or FOX since they're in the Super Bowl rotation. ABC wouldn't be a bad candidate, though. There's really very little motivation to continue the way they do. Unserved viewers simply isn't enough to feed the bottom line and the FCC can't stop them from giving up their licenses.
Edited by NetworkTV - 1/4/13 at 3:56am