# Opinions on "Cord Cutting"



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

I've read many threads lately with complaints about the rising cost of TV service. Many of these complaints are then followed with a rant about the high cost of sports programming and the age old "why should I have to pay for ESPN (and the like) when I don't even watch sports?" While I understand this argument to some extent, I would like to present a different viewpoint here: Sports programming is what's keeping pay TV viable in today's economy. 

I could make the argument that, if not for exclusive sporting events and programming available through pay TV subscriptions, we would see a much larger number of people cutting their cord, so to speak. With so many more viable options for TV today (Hulu, Netflix, OTA, just to name a few), there is very little reason to shell out $80+ a month just for the ability to watch a show without having to wait a few days or, worst case, a year to see through other mediums. But, what's one thing you can't do on a Roku? Watch Monday Night Football or an out of market NFL game. 

Advertisers have already shown us the future by their willingness to a invest more advertising $$$ into live sporting events than any other programming. The biggest reason? Those events are more likely to have real-time viewers as sports are not a good candidate for our DVR/on-demand world. I'm not suggesting that without sports we would have no TV subscriptions, but I do think that sports keep a lot of would-be cord cutters from jumping ship. That, in turn, keeps pay TV costs from skyrocketing even more as companies attempt to make up for the mass exodus from TV subscriptions. 

So, the next time you feel like ranting about the fact that you have to pay for sports you don't even watch, consider these points and perhaps change your tone to a thank you instead. If not for sports you may not have a pay TV option to complain about.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I helped a friend cut the cord last week. She had been paying for a triple play through Comcast that had risen to $160.00 a month. I proposed a CenturyLink package of DirecTV and 20MB internet for $75.00 a month for a year. She said no, she did not want to pay anything for TV. I brought over a $25.00 RCA flat antenna I got at Walmart and had good success getting all the major locals. Then we tried to see what was available over the cable without a cable box and was surprised to get about 60 channels. She was very happy with our results and then we called Centurylink and signed up for 20MB internet for $24.95 a month, bundling it with her Verizon cell phone.
Bottom line is she will save $135.00 a month. It will take a lifestyle change with no DVR, program guide or home phone but she is very happy and says she will have no trouble adapting. 

To make things easier for her, I gave her access to my Slingbox, in case she has DVR withdraw.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

The only problem is that there is no one "cord cutting" option that does everything. You have Hulu that has contracts with certain networks, Netflix with different contracts and Amazon with different ones still. If there was one that provided all then cutting the cord would be a lot easier.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I wouldn't mind cord cutting myself but my family members would be so mad at me for doing that, as they're helping me out with my bill, But its not about the price is about what they enjoy, Plus my dad is into sports and nature shows and my mom is into soap operas


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

I applaud those that follow through....and I wish I could get to that point as I am disgusted with my average DirecTV bill.

With that said, I can't really cut as I watch too much from channels that I can't get immediately online or with an antenna


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Phil T said:


> I helped a friend cut the cord last week. She had been paying for a triple play through Comcast that had risen to $160.00 a month. I proposed a CenturyLink package of DirecTV and 20MB internet for $75.00 a month for a year. She said no, she did not want to pay anything for TV. I brought over a $25.00 RCA flat antenna I got at Walmart and had good success getting all the major locals. Then we tried to see what was available over the cable without a cable box and was surprised to get about 60 channels. She was very happy with our results and then we called Centurylink and signed up for 20MB internet for $24.95 a month, bundling it with her Verizon cell phone.
> Bottom line is she will save $135.00 a month. It will take a lifestyle change with no DVR, program guide or home phone but she is very happy and says she will have no trouble adapting.
> 
> To make things easier for her, I gave her access to my Slingbox, in case she has DVR withdraw.


Add a Roku 3 to that (with the new unified search capability) and what an amazing setup with TONS of content for $24.95/month - including internet!


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

anex80 said:


> I've read many threads lately with complaints about the rising cost of TV service. Many of these complaints are then followed with a rant about the high cost of sports programming and the age old "why should I have to pay for ESPN (and the like) when I don't even watch sports?" While I understand this argument to some extent, I would like to present a different viewpoint here: Sports programming is what's keeping pay TV viable in today's economy.
> 
> I could make the argument that, if not for exclusive sporting events and programming available through pay TV subscriptions, we would see a much larger number of people cutting their cord, so to speak. With so many more viable options for TV today (Hulu, Netflix, OTA, just to name a few), there is very little reason to shell out $80+ a month just for the ability to watch a show without having to wait a few days or, worst case, a year to see through other mediums. But, what's one thing you can't do on a Roku? Watch Monday Night Football or an out of market NFL game.
> 
> ...


Fair points. Live sports is the ONLY reason I pay for TV (D*) at this point. There are ways to cut back (HDMI splitters, Roku, Slingboxes, etc) to just a single receiver/DVR, but that's about all I have been able to do at this point.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> The only problem is that there is no one "cord cutting" option that does everything. You have Hulu that has contracts with certain networks, Netflix with different contracts and Amazon with different ones still. If there was one that provided all then cutting the cord would be a lot easier.


That's called "al a carte" :lol:


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> The only problem is that there is no one "cord cutting" option that does everything. You have Hulu that has contracts with certain networks, Netflix with different contracts and Amazon with different ones still. If there was one that provided all then cutting the cord would be a lot easier.


There is one, is called DirecTV&#8230;lol


----------



## hallrk (Apr 15, 2010)

I'm really thinking about cutting the cord. My wife mainly watches Netflix and Youtube. We also have Amazon Prime. I like sports and I can get MLBTV cheaper than EI and it's a better picture to boot. Also can just about get all the college sports I want through ESPN3. If they would make available their regular ESPN channels online without having a TV provider it would be nearly perfect. I don't watch local channels that much. I guess if I really wanted to I could put up an antenna and get those. I think the time is coming that satellite and cable TV may become obsolete. Really, when I look at my bill, I am wondering why I am paying that much,$143.00.?.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

hallrk said:


> ...
> I like sports and I can get MLBTV cheaper than EI and it's a better picture to boot.
> ...


I've had/have both and seen MLB.tv on many devices...the PQ isn't better than EI. It's not bad, but it's not better.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

This is a great post. It boils down to this - how important is programming to you. If you're like me, and you think most programming these days ranges from marginal to pure garbage, cord cutting is increasingly becoming a very viable option. However, if you love current programming and/or can't do without something, then you're at the mercy of whatever your provider wants to charge.


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

I'm getting pretty close to pulling the trigger, the HR44 is intriguing but I know it adds 2 years commitment plus who knows what it will cost as an exising. Kids are getting into sports and other activities which equals less time at home. My DVRs are overfilled with content we no longer have time or desire to watch. 

My next step is to add a tuner card to my HTPC so I can use that as an OTA DVR. That & Amazon Prime would be livable with the growing number of networks that stream their own stuff


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Obviously programming is the only reason to have tv service at all. If you dont care about any scripted programming, then you'd only need your tv for watching movies or live sporting events.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Or for sitting mindlessly when you are too tired to care or do anything else :lol:



CCarncross said:


> Obviously programming is the only reason to have tv service at all. If you dont care about any scripted programming, then you'd only need your tv for watching movies or live sporting events.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Sports is the only thing keeping me. When my bill gets over 100$ a month it will be hard to stay, back to OTA.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I could live with OTA except for the college football season, but I'd also have to buy a DVR since there are a few programs that we like that run from 10 to 11 pm. We're generally in bed by 10. I also don't want to give up the opportunity to fast forward through commercials or pledge breaks on PBS.


----------



## hallrk (Apr 15, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> I've had/have both and seen MLB.tv on many devices...the PQ isn't better than EI. It's not bad, but it's not better.


Picture quality for me is much, much better. I compared a game the other night. Mets/Phils were on ESPN and I compared it against the MLBTV version. Not even close. Much sharper picture. I'm not even that picky on pq but this just blew the doors off what DTV had. To this point I am very happy to have MLBTV and the $75 savings I get from not having EI.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hallrk said:


> Picture quality for me is much, much better. I compared a game the other night. Mets/Phils were on ESPN and I compared it against the MLBTV version. Not even close. Much sharper picture. I'm not even that picky on pq but this just blew the doors off what DTV had. To this point I am very happy to have MLBTV and the $75 savings I get from not having EI.


Maybe an ESPN issue? They still do 720p right? I've noticed on occasion that the picture quality on ESPN is not all that great...


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

This thread is basically about making those of us that do not watch sports feel better about paying extra so the sports fans can pay less. Sorry, I still feel ESPN and the like should be a separate tier paid for by the people that watch them. I realize that will never happen until the people have choices other than bundles that price the sports in with the basic cable. Right now I have a choice of sat television or one channel over the air so it looks like I'm stuck for the time being.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

And the point has been made that sports, or more accurately, their highly paid advertising spots, are part of what makes TV affordable at all. Ala-carte and its kin "stripping sports out" will serve nothing but to make things more expensive.

Mind you, I'm speaking from the mind of someone that has been on the verge of cord cutting for a couple years now.



linuspbmo said:


> This thread is basically about making those of us that do not watch sports feel better about paying extra so the sports fans can pay less. Sorry, I still feel ESPN and the like should be a separate tier paid for by the people that watch them. I realize that will never happen until the people have choices other than bundles that price the sports in with the basic cable. Right now I have a choice of sat television or one channel over the air so it looks like I'm stuck for the time being.


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

I'm sure HBO would love to be a part of the basic package too. Just think how much cheaper HBO would be if everyone had to pay for it whether they want it or not. I understand most people on this site are hard core sports fans but in the real world most people would drop sports IF they had a chance. This is all academic at this point since it is not going to happen but don't try to make me like it.


----------



## Rob77 (Sep 24, 2007)

I have "cut the cord" and to be very honest...do not miss it at all. I followed some of the neighbors who did it last year, and decided to try it. I was already watching a good deal of Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc so the transition was very easy.

Yes I will miss a FEW sporting events but that's the tradeoff..... 

My Samsung Smart TV also helped, as you can easily shift sources very easily for a variety of viewing options.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Not sure if you're referring to me or what, but I'm not trying to make anyone "like" anything. I'm close to leaving DirecTV myself. I just recognize the economic reality for what it is.

TV doesn't exist to entertain us, TV exists to sell us crap. The more advertisers there are, the less we have to pay to be "entertained"



linuspbmo said:


> This is all academic at this point since it is not going to happen but don't try to make me like it.


----------



## omartinjordan (Mar 25, 2013)

Hopefully something will come along soon to change the way we view sports. I can't live without college football. Look at how torrents and peer2peer have changed the movie industry and music. Surely somebody is going to come up with something. I have internet through time warner and they block ESPN3 since I don't have cable. WTF? I really don't see how they are allowed to get away with it. They don't block hulu or any of the others. What's the difference?


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

hallrk said:


> Picture quality for me is much, much better. I compared a game the other night. Mets/Phils were on ESPN and I compared it against the MLBTV version. Not even close. Much sharper picture.


So MLBTV has all ESPN and nationally telecast games? That makes me hate the NHL even more.

As for the topic, I am very close to cutting the cord myself and am going to suspend my D* account when the hockey playoffs end and see how long I can make it without D*. Finally tried out Amazon Prime on my PS3 a few days ago and was impressed with the PQ.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

TV is getting so insanely expensive that I applaud those who cut the cord. I am a year or so away from cutting myself. Family members have ESPN Watch so I can get ESPN off my Xbox


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

Phil T said:


> I helped a friend cut the cord last week. She had been paying for a triple play through Comcast that had risen to $160.00 a month. I proposed a CenturyLink package of DirecTV and 20MB internet for $75.00 a month for a year. She said no, she did not want to pay anything for TV. I brought over a $25.00 RCA flat antenna I got at Walmart and had good success getting all the major locals. Then we tried to see what was available over the cable without a cable box and was surprised to get about 60 channels. She was very happy with our results and then we called Centurylink and signed up for 20MB internet for $24.95 a month, bundling it with her Verizon cell phone.
> Bottom line is she will save $135.00 a month. It will take a lifestyle change with no DVR, program guide or home phone but she is very happy and says she will have no trouble adapting.
> 
> To make things easier for her, I gave her access to my Slingbox, in case she has DVR withdraw.


 I would just pull out ny old RePlay DVR that i used for OTA & C Band


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

linuspbmo said:


> I'm sure HBO would love to be a part of the basic package too. Just think how much cheaper HBO would be if everyone had to pay for it whether they want it or not. I understand most people on this site are hard core sports fans but *in the real world most people would drop sports IF they had a chance.* This is all academic at this point since it is not going to happen but don't try to make me like it.


If that were true then the providers would not make all these massive deals. If the majority didn't want it then it would not be cost effective to have and they would do away with it. I have ti disagree with you statement.


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

joshjr said:


> If that were true then the providers would not make all these massive deals. If the majority didn't want it then it would not be cost effective to have and they would do away with it. I have ti disagree with you statement.


The providers can make these massive deals because they are guaranteed a paying audience. You are correct, if we had a choice then it would not be cost effective but we have no choice, all or none.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I haven't had much luck convincing myself or my girl friend to cut cord but i would love to,my problem is i really don't know if it would the right dissension or not but every time i think of it i get really depressed.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

omartinjordan said:


> Hopefully something will come along soon to change the way we view sports. I can't live without college football. Look at how torrents and peer2peer have changed the movie industry and music. Surely somebody is going to come up with something. I have internet through time warner and they block ESPN3 since I don't have cable. WTF? I really don't see how they are allowed to get away with it. They don't block hulu or any of the others. What's the difference?


The difference is simply they haven't gotten around to blocking Hulu yet. When too many people cut the cord, cable companies will become more aggressive in blocking those sites.

Also, content owners will start charging Hulu and other sites the same rates they used to charge the cable companies. The price of those sites will rise dramatically, and we'll all be right back where we started.


----------



## omartinjordan (Mar 25, 2013)

I also really don't understand why we have to pay for HD. I could understand it several years back when things were still in standard def but even the government gave you a device to be able to get the broadcast from hd to standard tv. If HD is now the norm why do we have to continue to pay for HD? 

If they would just try and be a little bit more reasonable on pricing we wouldn't be having any of these conversations. Nobody should have to pay over $100 a month for television. $100 a month should give you the highest package with DVR and a couple receivers.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

The main problem always comes down to greed. People are just getting too greedy anymore. Especially investors. It's not good enough for a company to just make a profit anymore, now days they have to increase profits constantly or the investors get nervous/upset and the stock prices plummet, which in turn makes the company cut more corners to cut costs further and everyone ends up with crappier goods and services, as well as more jobs being outsourced to cut costs.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> The difference is simply they haven't gotten around to blocking Hulu yet. When too many people cut the cord, cable companies will become more aggressive in blocking those sites.
> 
> Also, content owners will start charging Hulu and other sites the same rates they used to charge the cable companies. The price of those sites will rise dramatically, and we'll all be right back where we started.


Not to mention there are data caps on alot of internet plans these days that already hinder people going to the net for all of their content.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

omartinjordan said:


> I also really don't understand why we have to pay for HD. I could understand it several years back when things were still in standard def but even the government gave you a device to be able to get the broadcast from hd to standard tv. *If HD is now the norm why do we have to continue to pay for HD? *
> 
> If they would just try and be a little bit more reasonable on pricing we wouldn't be having any of these conversations. Nobody should have to pay over $100 a month for television. $100 a month should give you the highest package with DVR and a couple receivers.


Not sure where you get that HD is the norm. Digital is the norm. Not all digital is considered HD.


----------



## omartinjordan (Mar 25, 2013)

joshjr said:


> Not sure where you get that HD is the norm. Digital is the norm. Not all digital is considered HD.


Sorry. I guess I am used to all the local networks broadcasting HD over the air for free. Aren't most shows filmed in HD now? I am not being smart, just asking.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

omartinjordan said:


> Sorry. I guess I am used to all the local networks broadcasting HD over the air for free. Aren't most shows filmed in HD now? *I am not being smart*, just asking.


Me either. I dont know that most shows are broadcast in HD either.


----------



## omartinjordan (Mar 25, 2013)

I think they are going to have to remove the HD charge in a few years. I think that's why they offer the free hd discount for autopay. In my area of Kentucky the major networks seem to air everything in hd for the most part. Even PBS.


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

The networks (local affiliate) are now banking on the re-transmission fees they are getting from cable and Sat. Even though they are sending them out Free OTA the revenue they are making from corded folks is crazy.

The Aereo story is going to be an interesting one to follow as Fox tries to keep that revenue in hand.


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

So I'm going to take the plunge. I will really miss the ESPN family and Sunday Ticket, but I just did the math and realized I can save almost $1000 a year by switching to a Netflix only plan with a TiVo OTA receiver. I'm a huge sports nut but I just don't think it's worth the $83/month I'd have to pay to keep the channels and packages I want.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

anex80 said:


> So I'm going to take the plunge. I will really miss the ESPN family and Sunday Ticket, but I just did the math and realized I can save almost $1000 a year by switching to a Netflix only plan with a TiVo OTA receiver. I'm a huge sports nut but I just don't think it's worth the $83/month I'd have to pay to keep the channels and packages I want.


Seems like most are not happy with just Netflix as a replacement. They end up needing Hulu, some stuff off Amazon or iTunes, better internet more frequent Red Box visits, etc. Not to mention alot of internet providers now days have caps on their plans. Streaming much in HD can eat through that cap pretty quick. Good luck to you, I hope it works out just the way you want it too.


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

Thanks JoshJr. I'm a little nervous since I've never been without some form of pay TV subscription before. I figure with Netflix and TiVo to record my OTA channels I will be fine. I doubt I'll miss it at all until football season, that will be the real test. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

joshjr;3208516 said:


> Seems like most are not happy with just Netflix as a replacement. They end up needing Hulu, some stuff off Amazon or iTunes, better internet more frequent Red Box visits, etc. Not to mention alot of internet providers now days have caps on their plans. Streaming much in HD can eat through that cap pretty quick. Good luck to you, I hope it works out just the way you want it too.


I agree, it sounds like a good idea but once one crosses that bridge it typically isn't. It could work if your internet doesn't have a data cap and you are okay with having to wait some days for a new episode to be made available once it airs. I personally could probably do it as i do not watch much television cause content these days are lacking lol.


----------



## hallrk (Apr 15, 2010)

lokar said:


> So MLBTV has all ESPN and nationally telecast games? That makes me hate the NHL even more.
> 
> As for the topic, I am very close to cutting the cord myself and am going to suspend my D* account when the hockey playoffs end and see how long I can make it without D*. Finally tried out Amazon Prime on my PS3 a few days ago and was impressed with the PQ.


For this year they don't show the FOX and ESPN Sunday night game live. It is available after the game is over in their archives. Which is another good reason to have MLBTV. You can go back and watch any game that you may have missed or just want to watch again. Also I think the blackout for FOX games ends next season and maybe the ESPN Sunday game too?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> The only problem is that there is no one "cord cutting" option that does everything. You have Hulu that has contracts with certain networks, Netflix with different contracts and Amazon with different ones still. If there was one that provided all then cutting the cord would be a lot easier.


I tried about a year ago. It was a time that, for whatever reason, I was watching NetFlix most of the time. The idea went down the tubes when I gathered everyone around and told them what we could do with BD players, Rokus, Apple TV, etc.

First words out of my wife's mouth were, "How are you gonna watch the Yankees?" Yet another of my grand schemes went quickly down the toilet. She had a lot more to say about my scheme, but I quickly gave up.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Obviously programming is the only reason to have tv service at all. If you dont care about any scripted programming, then you'd only need your tv for watching movies or live sporting events.


If it wasn't for the scripted shows on the movie channels, I'd drop the Premier package. Those shows are so good it's almost worth the cost of the package. I rarely record movies from that package and if I do, they usually sit there in my UPL unwatched.

I think the 10-13 episode scripted shows on HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and Starz are exceptional. I kinda wish the networks would follow this model instead of the 23 or so episodes a year. Go for quality instead of quantity. And we'd get more shows out of it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Maybe an ESPN issue? They still do 720p right? I've noticed on occasion that the picture quality on ESPN is not all that great...


Yup, 720p on ESPN. I do think the PQ is a bit better than Fox channels, but it's really annoying and very noticeable. A few weeks ago, I started watching _The Vikings_ on the History channel. First scripted series on History and it's really good. Well cast, well written and it's in 720p. Watched the first episode and about 10 minutes in I was reaching for my TV remote and sure enough, 720p. What a waste of a very good show. Same thing with _Justified_. Very good series, but 720p.

Rich


----------



## Cyber36 (Mar 20, 2008)

gfrang said:


> I haven't had much luck convincing myself or my girl friend to cut cord but i would love to,my problem is i really don't know if it would the right dissension or not but every time i think of it i get really depressed.


 Oh whoa is you!! Stop & think about ALL the elderly who live on fixed incomes(which obama is about to whittle down again)who have to decide if their going to pay their heating bill this month, or eat. NOW THAT'S DEPRESSING!! TV is just a luxury MOST of us can do without.......


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Seems like most are not happy with just Netflix as a replacement. They end up needing Hulu, some stuff off Amazon or iTunes, better internet more frequent Red Box visits, etc. Not to mention alot of internet providers now days have caps on their plans. Streaming much in HD can eat through that cap pretty quick. Good luck to you, I hope it works out just the way you want it too.


NF, by itself, is definitely not the answer.

Rich


----------



## omartinjordan (Mar 25, 2013)

You can always just be a season behind and wait until they release the season on dvd or netflix.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Cyber36 said:


> Oh whoa is you!! Stop & think about ALL the elderly who live on fixed incomes(which obama is about to whittle down again)who have to decide if their going to pay their heating bill this month, or eat. NOW THAT'S DEPRESSING!! TV is just a luxury MOST of us can do without.......


It is a luxury, no doubt about it. I've often wondered how folks with fixed incomes deal with it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

omartinjordan said:


> You can always just be a season behind and wait until they release the season on dvd or netflix.


I tried that argument and it failed miserably.

Rich


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Cyber36;3208961 said:


> Oh whoa is you!! Stop & think about ALL the elderly who live on fixed incomes(which obama is about to whittle down again)who have to decide if their going to pay their heating bill this month, or eat. NOW THAT'S DEPRESSING!! TV is just a luxury MOST of us can do without.......


Really, you want to get into politics about this? If you want to blame Obama, feel free to glance in the mirror


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

anex80 said:


> I've read many threads lately with complaints about the rising cost of TV service. Many of these complaints are then followed with a rant about the high cost of sports programming and the age old "why should I have to pay for ESPN (and the like) when I don't even watch sports?" While I understand this argument to some extent, I would like to present a different viewpoint here: Sports programming is what's keeping pay TV viable in today's economy.
> 
> I could make the argument that, if not for exclusive sporting events and programming available through pay TV subscriptions, we would see a much larger number of people cutting their cord, so to speak. With so many more viable options for TV today (Hulu, Netflix, OTA, just to name a few), there is very little reason to shell out $80+ a month just for the ability to watch a show without having to wait a few days or, worst case, a year to see through other mediums. But, what's one thing you can't do on a Roku? Watch Monday Night Football or an out of market NFL game.
> 
> ...


Trust me, It isn't sports keeping paying for TV service it is all the non OTA channels that I watch.

I disagree that a DVR is no good for sports too. 
Is it really that important to watch it live with all the advertisements and time wasting in the home. 
Just DVR the Game and start watching it near the end of the game, They all run over anyway. That way you can skip the advertisements and so forth. I could watch a football game that way ib approx 50 minutes and that much more free time for other things that are important like family.

I expect I'll get flack about my heresy as regards not watching a sporting event live.

TB


----------



## omartinjordan (Mar 25, 2013)

Sports is why I would like the genie. I use the double play feature every saturday during college football. If I could switch between 5 college games at the same time I wouldn't know what to do. It would be like pure heaven.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

omartinjordan said:


> Sports is why I would like the genie. I use the double play feature every saturday during college football. If I could switch between 5 college games at the same time I wouldn't know what to do. It would be like pure heaven.


I dont believe it will buffer all 5 tuners at the same time. There is no "quintuple play" feature yet. 

You still only have double play, even with the 5 tuners.


----------



## hallrk (Apr 15, 2010)

TBoneit said:


> Trust me, It isn't sports keeping paying for TV service it is all the non OTA channels that I watch.
> 
> I disagree that a DVR is no good for sports too.
> Is it really that important to watch it live with all the advertisements and time wasting in the home.
> ...


I would rather watch most sports events off the DVR. I find the NFL nearly unwatchable with all the commercials they have now. Nearly the same for the NCAA tournament games too. Most times I will pause games,go do something for a few minutes,come back and pick up the game. Scroll right through the commercials. You can watch a game in about half the time.


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

I understand everyone's points about DVR on sports. I do that too, but still only during the game like many have stated here. I can't go several days without watching the event and then watch a recorded version, however.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

anex80 said:


> I understand everyone's points about DVR on sports. I do that too, but still only during the game like many have stated here. I can't go several days without watching the event and then watch a recorded version, however.


I'm just the opposite. I never watch sports live. If I have a vested interest, I wait to see if the outcome pleases me. If it does, I'll watch the event several times. If not it gets deleted without watching. If I have no investment in who wins, but the game appears to be entertaining, I'll watch it later. I haven't watched a live sporting event in years...same with ordinary programming.

TV is too expensive, to be sure, and it's getting worse. I'm looking for local alternatives but a DVR must be part of the solution. We have fiber coming out here to the country soon and the local telephone company is going to offer TV and internet services. We are going to look very hard at this option, as it would be nice to keep the money locally (or more locally). Been with D* for a very, very long time, but enough is becoming enough.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

hasan said:


> I'm just the opposite. I never watch sports live. If I have a vested interest, I wait to see if the outcome pleases me. If it does, I'll watch the event several times. If not it gets deleted without watching. If I have no investment in who wins, but the game appears to be entertaining, I'll watch it later. *I haven't watched a live sporting event in years...same with ordinary programming.*
> 
> TV is too expensive, to be sure, and it's getting worse. I'm looking for local alternatives but a DVR must be part of the solution. We have fiber coming out here to the country soon and the local telephone company is going to offer TV and internet services. We are going to look very hard at this option, as it would be nice to keep the money locally (or more locally). Been with D* for a very, very long time, but enough is becoming enough.


Including playoffs and the Super Bowl?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Including playoffs and the Super Bowl?


I'm with *Hasan *on this. I watch everything recorded. Very little live.

Yup, on the playoffs and the Super Bowl, I watch after recording. I try to record every game of the Yankees' season and watch each game either during the recording or the next morning.

I didn't acquire all these HRs to watch commercials... :lol:


----------



## HinterXGames (Dec 20, 2012)

Cyber36 said:


> Oh whoa is you!! Stop & think about ALL the elderly who live on fixed incomes(which obama is about to whittle down again)who have to decide if their going to pay their heating bill this month, or eat. NOW THAT'S DEPRESSING!! TV is just a luxury MOST of us can do without.......


Just because it could be worse, doesn't make it better. A very harsh response to someone just airing a little frustration. Really, uncalled for and out of line.


----------



## bungi43 (Jan 17, 2011)

anex80 said:


> I've read many threads lately with complaints about the rising cost of TV service. Many of these complaints are then followed with a rant about the high cost of sports programming and the age old "why should I have to pay for ESPN (and the like) when I don't even watch sports?" While I understand this argument to some extent, I would like to present a different viewpoint here: Sports programming is what's keeping pay TV viable in today's economy.
> 
> I could make the argument that, if not for exclusive sporting events and programming available through pay TV subscriptions, we would see a much larger number of people cutting their cord, so to speak. With so many more viable options for TV today (Hulu, Netflix, OTA, just to name a few), there is very little reason to shell out $80+ a month just for the ability to watch a show without having to wait a few days or, worst case, a year to see through other mediums. But, what's one thing you can't do on a Roku? Watch Monday Night Football or an out of market NFL game.
> 
> ...


If I could get a WatchESPN provider where I live, I'd turn my satellite off right now.


----------



## chscott (Apr 14, 2008)

After 16 years with DirecTV, tired of paying for a lot of TV I don't watch and in my opinion, excessive equipment fees, I canceled my service and I just sent my equipment back to DirecTV this morning. For the past 2 weeks I have used Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus for most of my TV watching. I am getting quite a few stations OTA, but I don't have a DVR setup at this point. Not much of a sports fan, so cutting the cord has been pretty painless. I canceled my premium channels over a year ago with DirecTV, but I am holding out hope Sho and HBO will offer something in the near future. If not, oh well.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

chscott said:


> After 16 years with DirecTV, tired of paying for a lot of TV I don't watch and in my opinion, excessive equipment fees, I canceled my service and I just sent my equipment back to DirecTV this morning. For the past 2 weeks I have used Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus for most of my TV watching. I am getting quite a few stations OTA, but I don't have a DVR setup at this point. Not much of a sports fan, so cutting the cord has been pretty painless. I canceled my premium channels over a year ago with DirecTV, but I am holding out hope Sho and HBO will offer something in the near future. If not, oh well.


If Showtime would let me pay them directly and stream their channels I'd be right there with you. Someday I'll get up the nerve to cut the cord and just wait a year for Netflix to get their original programming.....


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

If the constant rise in cost keeps going its only a matter of time until most of us call it quits.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

The problem with streaming content is the quality is crap as well as the selection. If one goes legit that is. 

Though these days everything we watch is on the DVR and we don't watch live tv so it's getting close to a point where that could happen. And the new x.265 codec coming next year will improve streaming quality dramatically.

Just curious, what is the cancellation fee for direct? I think I read it's $20/month remaining on the contract. Do you get to keep the receiver or do you have to send it back?


----------



## stewdog1 (Sep 6, 2007)

I'm like many others here. I would cut the cord if it wasn't for sports. Even though most of the games I watch end up being recorded.


----------



## chscott (Apr 14, 2008)

archer75 said:


> The problem with streaming content is the quality is crap as well as the selection. If one goes legit that is.


The quality of steaming I have experienced is fantastic. I have a cable modem connection that can get up to 12mbps. I stream entire movies and series encoded with Dobly 5.1 with very few issues. I am using my PS3 as a base unit to launch Hulu and Amazon Prime. Over the past 2 weeks, I once had a message that quality would be lowered due to low bandwidth and 2 other times the stream paused during playback. This could be my network as I am temporarily using Linksys Powerline adapters to move the data from one side of the house to the other.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

chscott said:


> The quality of steaming I have experienced is fantastic. I have a cable modem connection that can get up to 12mbps. I stream entire movies and series encoded with Dobly 5.1 with very few issues. I am using my PS3 as a base unit to launch Hulu and Amazon Prime. Over the past 2 weeks, I once had a message that quality would be lowered due to low bandwidth and 2 other times the stream paused during playback. This could be my network as I am temporarily using Linksys Powerline adapters to move the data from one side of the house to the other.


Perhaps I should have prefaced my comment by saying the quality on larger displays is crap. Harder to notice on smaller TV's. I'm using a projector and a large screen so any imperfections I can see. I also have FIOS for interent and no caps so bandwidth isn't an issue. My entire house is wired with gigabit so no issue moving video around. 
I also wish movie streaming had Dolby TrueHD or DTS-MA HD.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

archer75 said:


> The problem with streaming content is the quality is crap as well as the selection. If one goes legit that is.


The streaming quality has to do with your ISP package speed, your area, and your networking equipment could impact it as well. Like I have a Motorola Surfboard SB510U Cable Modem and a Belkin N300 Wireless N Router, and 30mbps download speed and 2 mbps upload with MediaCom and seem to never have a problem with quality streaming on sites such as Hulu, Crackle, and Youtube using my dv6-7215nr Notebook/PS3/xbox360. I can agree with you on the selection on some of these sites which is why I gave Netflix the utter shaft. Like what internet speed do you have?


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

Volatility said:


> The streaming quality has to do with your ISP package speed, your area, and your networking equipment could impact it as well. Like I have a Motorola Surfboard SB510U Cable Modem and a Belkin N300 Wireless N Router, and 30mbps download speed and 2 mbps upload with MediaCom and seem to never have a problem with quality streaming on Hulu, HBOGO, Showtime Anytime, Crackle, and Youtube using my dv6-7215nr Notebook/PS3/xbox360. I can agree with you on the selection on some of these sites which is why I gave Netflix the utter shaft. Like what internet speed do you have?


I posted above but i'm on FIOS. 25 down/25 up. Whole house hard wired with Cat6 and gigabit switches.


----------



## Jillxz (Jul 16, 2012)

peds48 said:


> There is one, is called DirecTV&#8230;lol


Nope , it's not called DirecTV I just dropped Directv because I got tired of paying $87.99 a month for program I never watched.Like over 50 channels of informercials and selling channels. lots of reality programs , double channels like 2 QVC channels , Just plain trash stuff that I don't watch.. Many sport channels that I don't watch . I could have gone to a lower package , but then I would not have been able to watch some of the main program that I do like. So , I dropped them..I don't have anything but Netflix . Do plan to get the Roku3. But no , Paying these outlandish prices to watch a few choice programs is too much. I elect not to do It . Maybe I will get tired of not getting my local channels and go back. Time will tell I guess.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

joshjr said:


> Including playoffs and the Super Bowl?


Yes. I still haven't fully watched the last two super bowls, but I have watched all the playoff games I cared to...and several were watched multiple times. I guess I'm more of a fan of the game than of a team. I follow multiple teams and enjoy the "game". Being a long suffering follower of da bears, I've learned not to invest too heavily in the outcome of any given game, but focus more on appreciating what takes place on the field. I understand that approach is pretty unusual, but that's what I do, and I really enjoy the games.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Looks like Dish is planning for the future at least...

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20130415&id=16351863

I really do think for the 'masses' things are going to change in the near future. Why pay for channel after channel of crap when you can go online and get 'most' of what you want.

Satellite makes sense for rural areas but for the majority on-line is likely where it will be and Satellite and on-line don't seem to go together.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

archer75 said:


> I posted above but i'm on FIOS. 25 down/25 up. Whole house hard wired with Cat6 and gigabit switches.


Sorry I missed that. With speeds like that I can't see why streaming quality would be an issue. Have you tried a speed test at speedtest.net and see what you are actually getting? Also if you don't already know, Verizon offers an optimizer that may help out: http://my.verizon.com/services/speedoptimizer/FiOS/FiosOptimizerDownload.aspx?CusType=


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

To "cut the cord" requires a lifestyle change like losing weight. You have to be in the right mind set. (BTW I have lost 43 lbs since November!) 

My friend who I helped do this feels really good about what she did. Others where she works are considering doing the same. I actually could probably make some money advising some of these folks how to do it, but I won't since they are friends. 

FYI, at least here in the Denver area, if you cancel your Comcast cable or internet, they don't disconnect the service line from the house, and you can continue to get about 60 channels, including all the locals in HD. You need a newer HD set and ATSC tuner. I don't know how long this will last, but I know several folks who are doing this. I have never had Comcast TV but I get the 60 channels over the cable I used for internet that I canceled in January.

BTW, if you work for Comcast, you did not see this here. :grin:


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Phil T said:


> FYI, at least here in the Denver area, if you cancel your Comcast cable or internet, they don't disconnect the service line from the house, and you can continue to get about 60 channels, including all the locals in HD. You need a newer HD set and ATSC tuner. I don't know how long this will last, but I know several folks who are doing this. I have never had Comcast TV but I get the 60 channels over the cable I used for internet that I canceled in January.


Regardless whether or not they disconnected it at the tap, if you knowingly and willingly connect the incoming line to your TV it is cable theft.


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

Mike Greer said:


> Looks like Dish is planning for the future at least...
> 
> http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20130415&id=16351863


That would mean they would have had acquired both Blockbuster and Sprint Nextel if this goes through. I ponder why D* never does any such bidding on such entities.


Phil T said:


> BTW, if you work for Comcast, you did not see this here. :grin:


well there is this Comcast call center down the road from me where I know several people whom work there lol


----------



## Volatility (May 22, 2010)

double post


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

coolman302003 said:


> Regardless whether or not they disconnected it at the tap, if you knowingly and willingly connect the incoming line to your TV it is cable theft.


How is that theft? In my mind, theft requires some sort of action on the part of the thief, not lack of action on someone else's part. You own the wires in your house, you are under no obligation to disconnect those wires from your TV because you cancelled service. If the cable company doesn't disconnect/filter your house that's their fault, not yours. If they disconnected the wire and you reconnected it, _then_ it would be theft. If you paid to have a newspaper delivered to your house every morning and cancelled, but you still received a paper because they failed to notify the paperboy, is it theft if you read that paper but not if you dump it in the recycling bin unread? That's basically the difference between having a usable cable signal sent in your home that you either watch or choose not to watch. It may be a bit unethical, but it is definitely not theft.

If they aren't bothering to disconnect the cable, and this is not down to a couple lazy employees but is the policy for the whole area, perhaps they're planning on encrypting all the channels fairly soon so they don't think it matters if a few people get free cable in the meantime. I know there are now a few places where there is nothing broadcast in clear QAM or analog any longer, so you need a cable box or cable card to get even a single channel. In a few years that'll be the norm for cable, so they can do connect/disconnects remotely without a truck roll and pretty much eliminate all cable theft (not your imaginary theft, but actual theft, where someone goes into the boxes to reconnect their drop/remove filters, or split off from a neighbor's line)


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

I read on DSLReports all the time of people who talk about how they are only subscribed to internet and/or phone service that knowingly and willingly split the incoming line and connect it to their TV and that is most definitely cable theft.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

The cable in my house was installed by me. Comcast hooked it up to their system outside of my house. The Tech who installed it said the cable was still connected at the their box even though I cancelled cable 16 years ago! When I called and cancelled I expected Comcast to physically disconnect me from their system, but it seems like they don't do that.
It is not like I removed filters like a lot of people did years ago to get premium programming. If they continue to send programming down the pipe in the clear I am not stealing anything!

Now realize the channels I can get are only HD and SD locals and a few standard cable channels (Discovery, Hallmark) and shopping channels and religious channels.. There are also a lot of duplicates of those channels. But for cord cutters, the locals are all they want, and if it keeps them from buying an antenna, why not!


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Phil T said:


> The cable in my house was installed by me. Comcast hooked it up to their system outside of my house. The Tech who installed it said the cable was still connected at the their box even though I cancelled cable 16 years ago! When I called and cancelled I expected Comcast to physically disconnect me from their system, but it seems like they don't do that.
> It is not like I removed filters like a lot of people did years ago to get premium programming. If they continue to send programming down the pipe in the clear I am not stealing anything!
> 
> Now realize the channels I can get are only HD and SD locals and a few standard cable channels (Discovery, Hallmark) and shopping channels and religious channels.. There are also a lot of duplicates of those channels. But for cord cutters, the locals are all they want, and if it keeps them from buying an antenna, why not!


Because the legal thing to do would be to pay for what you are receiving...Comcast, like all other MSOs (DirecTV, DISH, FIOS, U-Verse, etc., etc.) have to pay retransmission fees for all the broadcast networks, not to mention these fees are constantly on the rise. Why do you think they charge for TV service? Using an antenna is the only "free" way to legally receive the local broadcast networks.

Now, if you do not want to pay for the service then the right thing to do would be to contact Comcast via Twitter or there support forums, explain the situation and I bet they will address it.

Anyways, I have veered a little off topic...so back to the topic of "Cord Cutting"! :righton:


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

Volatility said:


> Sorry I missed that. With speeds like that I can't see why streaming quality would be an issue. Have you tried a speed test at speedtest.net and see what you are actually getting? Also if you don't already know, Verizon offers an optimizer that may help out: http://my.verizon.com/services/speedoptimizer/FiOS/FiosOptimizerDownload.aspx?CusType=


My speed is fine. It's just that most streaming isn't 1080p. Vudu if you want to pay for it. That's why netflix launched their super duper HD or whatever they are calling it now. Only available to select ISP's and devices. If you watch streaming video on a large enough display you can certainly see a difference between it and any other pay for provider. And i'm on a 145" screen so I can see every imperfection.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

coolman302003 said:


> I read on DSLReports all the time of people who talk about how they are only subscribed to internet and/or phone service that knowingly and willingly split the incoming line and connect it to their TV and that is most definitely cable theft.


Exactly. It is too expensive for Comcast/other providers to go out and put a filter on every line that gets Internet service without TV service, so they don't do it. But you are supposed to unhook it from your TVs and stop using the service. Not doing so is considered theft like the others have mentioned. Just like if you find a wallet, or other valuable item on the street and don't do anything to try to return it to it's rightful owner that too is considered theft. And yes, if your paperboy continues delivering your paper after you stopped your subscription and you keep taking it and reading it, that too is theft. It's highly unlikely you would ever get sued or arrested for it, but it is theft.

People doing just what you are suggesting is why Comcast and the other cable companies have recently asked and received permission from the FCC to now start scrambling all channels on their cable systems. So the days of clear QAM will be coming to an end pretty soon. Scrambling all channels and providing low cost DTAs to customers paying for TV service is more economical than putting filters on all the lines.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

If there is a low cost cable TV option, they sure don't tell you about it. Everyone I have talked to, who has tried to lower their bill with Comcast, is usually offered $20.00 a month off of a high end package in exchange for a 2 year commitment. That is why they are dropping the service.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

BTW, I only hooked up my cable to a TV to see if what I was being told by others was correct about "free" content. I have a 4 HR series DVR's and a full subscription to DirecTV.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Satellite can't even come close to the $49 I'm paying for cable, my 8-tuner WMC whole home DVR and 5 client boxes ($2/month for the entire system). They don't charge extra for HD either. After 2 yrs price goes up to $70-something which is still a lot less than the same package at DirecTV. Another benefit is I get all my locals without having an antenna, and I can actually watch SD channels without being compelled to gouge my eyes out as was the case with DirecTV. 

This isn't cord cutting, but it isn't cable theft either, which some equate to cord cutting for some strange reason. When you keep the cord and just stop paying for it, that's not cord cutting. That's stealing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mdavej said:


> Satellite can't even come close to the $49 I'm paying for cable, my 8-tuner WMC whole home DVR and 5 client boxes ($2/month for the entire system). They don't charge extra for HD either. After 2 yrs price goes up to $70-something which is still a lot less than the same package at DirecTV. Another benefit is I get all my locals without having an antenna, and I can actually watch SD channels without being compelled to gouge my eyes out as was the case with DirecTV.
> 
> This isn't cord cutting, but it isn't cable theft either, which some equate to cord cutting for some strange reason. When you keep the cord and just stop paying for it, that's not cord cutting. That's stealing.


Who is your provider and where are you located? I pay nearly $80/month for cable and I just have the basic package with about 70 HD channels and another 20 or so SD channels, including $2/month to rent a cable card for my Tivo.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Who is your provider and where are you located? I pay nearly $80/month for cable and I just have the basic package with about 70 HD channels and another 20 or so SD channels, including $2/month to rent a cable card for my Tivo.


Charter in the southeast. Normal price for my package is $69.99. I get about 75 HD channels in my mid-tier package (nearly everything except movie channels). I can't say how many SD because there is so much overlap with the HD versions, maybe 40 that I have in my fav lists that don't have HD versions. My cable card is $2/month as well, so I'm guessing you have Charter too? Do you have Tivo lifetime or a monthly fee?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mdavej said:


> Charter in the southeast. Normal price for my package is $69.99. I get about 75 HD channels in my mid-tier package (nearly everything except movie channels). I can't say how many SD because there is so much overlap with the HD versions, maybe 40 that I have in my fav lists that don't have HD versions. My cable card is $2/month as well, so I'm guessing you have Charter too? Do you have Tivo lifetime or a monthly fee?


I'm Mediacom, not Charter. I'm not sure of the exact price but mine may be $69.99 before all the various taxes and fees are included, so I guess our packages are probably pretty comparable. I can't get any discounts from them because I use DSL and have no interest in accepting the reliability of any cable provider for my internet. Seems like you can only get discounts from them if you want a triple play or a high end package including all the movie channels.

My Tivo is lifetime, paid $299 for it with MSD. I can't see why anyone would ever pay monthly unless they're really scared the lifetime of the box will be less than 2-3 years.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Some of the prices being listed here are insane. Trying signing up for TV/Internet in New Orleans and even with Cox and their 5-6 months low offers....people like me paid well over $115 for basic packages of both


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

mdavej said:


> Satellite can't even come close to the $49 I'm paying for cable, my 8-tuner WMC whole home DVR and 5 client boxes ($2/month for the entire system). They don't charge extra for HD either. After 2 yrs price goes up to $70-something which is still a lot less than the same package at DirecTV. Another benefit is I get all my locals without having an antenna, and I can actually watch SD channels without being compelled to gouge my eyes out as was the case with DirecTV.
> 
> This isn't cord cutting, but it isn't cable theft either, which some equate to cord cutting for some strange reason. When you keep the cord and just stop paying for it, that's not cord cutting. That's stealing.


May not be appropriate in this thread, but I'd like to hear more about your setup. Maybe post something in this underused forum: http://www.dbstalk.com/forum/93-miscellaneous-equipment/


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

I was paying $45/month with Dish for their dish america silver package and DVR. Was a great deal. And that was the out of contract price.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

archer75 said:


> I was paying $45/month with Dish for their dish america silver package and DVR. Was a great deal. And that was the out of contract price.


Dish does have some really cheap packages, but you get what you pay for. That one, for example, only has 34 HD channels, and just a total 54 of including SD. So it is cheap, but you don't get much content.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Dish does have some really cheap packages, but you get what you pay for. That one, for example, only has 34 HD channels, and just a total 54 of including SD. So it is cheap, but you don't get much content.


I understand what you are saying, but if they had the right channels in those cheaper packages it would be more channels than I currently watch!


----------



## chscott (Apr 14, 2008)

Mike Greer said:


> Looks like Dish is planning for the future at least...
> 
> http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20130415&id=16351863
> 
> I really do think for the 'masses' things are going to change in the near future. Why pay for channel after channel of crap when you can go online and get 'most' of what you want


I agree. I think this is going to catch on fast, especially with younger people. A couple of years ago when a co worker of mine told me he was cutting the cord, I thought he was nuts, but here I am now doing the same thing.

I thought the amount of content would be the issue, but just the opposite. We have at least 20 shows/movies queued. Loving Amazon Prime. Hulu in my opinion is just ok. Just started to watch Justified...I have a lot of catching up to do.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> I understand what you are saying, but if they had the right channels in those cheaper packages it would be more channels than I currently watch!


Amen. Like most people, I have to subscribe to the 250 channel package to get the dozen channels I watch.

In the not so distant future, I can definitely see cutting the cord once all my kids leave home. OTA, Hulu, BBC, Netflix and Redbox should give me most of the content I want. Sitting through the commercials on Hulu is pretty brutal, but it's a small price to pay considering the money I'd be saving. The only thing that could make cable/satellite compelling would be a la carte. But that probably won't happen in my lifetime.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

chscott said:


> Hulu in my opinion is just ok.


Since we're expressing opinions on cord-cutting options, I'm of the opinion that Hulu isn't even OK. You pay for a subscription and you still get ads? And I believe there are shows you still have to watch on the computer and can't watch on a BD player or Roku with Hulu Plus. That's BS and that's why Hulu is crap, IMO.


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

bidger said:


> Since we're expressing opinions on cord-cutting options, I'm of the opinion that Hulu isn't even OK. You pay for a subscription and you still get ads? And I believe there are shows you still have to watch on the computer and can't watch on a BD player or Roku with Hulu Plus. That's BS and that's why Hulu is crap, IMO.


I completely agree! Subscription service with ads, minimal content, some of which still expires, limitations on what can be watched on non-PC devices. Not a lot of bang for your buck.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Dish does have some really cheap packages, but you get what you pay for. That one, for example, only has 34 HD channels, and just a total 54 of including SD. So it is cheap, but you don't get much content.


True. But it has everything I want.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bidger said:


> Since we're expressing opinions on cord-cutting options, I'm of the opinion that Hulu isn't even OK. You pay for a subscription and you still get ads? And I believe there are shows you still have to watch on the computer and can't watch on a BD player or Roku with Hulu Plus. That's BS and that's why Hulu is crap, IMO.


Yup, I'll agree with that. Altho it does come in handy at times.

Rich


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Rich said:


> Yup, I'll agree with that. Altho it does come in handy at times.
> 
> Rich


The free Hulu version, Rich? Yeah, I'd agree with that for missed or incomplete recordings on the DVR. I was mostly venting on the pay Plus version


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bidger said:


> The free Hulu version, Rich? Yeah, I'd agree with that for missed or incomplete recordings on the DVR. I was mostly venting on the pay Plus version


No, I meant Hulu +.

Rich


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

We moved out of state for a job and the local sports in our new town didn't interest us. That made it easy to cut the cord as we could get games for the teams we follow easily through league subcriptions.

We were paying $120 ($1440) a month for TV before moving. That included pretty much all channels including HBO, Showtime, Starts, and Cinemax.

Now we have: Amazon prime (I consider this free as we get it for the free shipping option since we buy a lot from them), Netflix with 2 DVDs ($120), Hulu Plus ($96), MLB subscription ($120), NFL through PS3 ($300), 4 months of Soccer 2 go ($40), we average about 5 movies a month from Red Box ($90), Game of Thrones Season ($19). Total $785

Hardware added: WinTV-HVR-2250 $129. Dual OTA recording. I repurposed an older PC with Win7 and Windows Media Player for OTA.

I already had PS3 for all the Internet based content and Blu Ray DVDs. I had a Logitech Google TV that we use for the second TV.

Total savings for first year: $526. On-going: $655 per year.

Pros: Savings. Mostly ad free experience. We pay only for what we watch. Hulu plus acts as a "cloud" DVR since it has full season of series. Able to watch out of town games.

Cons: Ads in Hulu Plus, although they are just a handful per program. Stil expensive for sports, specially for NFL. The PS3 app says that they have a limited amount of people that can subscribe to the NFL package. HTPC is noisy.

Posible tweaks: Eliminate NFL package for $300. We will consider changing to the going to the bar plan . Eliminate Soccer2go for $40. I decided against getting the NHL package that was $50 this year. I didn't miss it at all. Get a Roku player for the main TV and move the PS3 back to the second TV.

Wishes: If Redbox can rent a movie for $1.50 why can't the streamers like Vudu or Amazon do the same? For NFL, I would like them to offer a single team subscription or even the Red Zone channel only option for a reduced price. Same for the other leagues. Amazon needs a much improved interface. I would consider TiVo if the subscription was $5 a month. $15 a month to get the guide is excesive. The cable premium channels like HBO Go should offer an Internet only subscription. Offer a $10 a month plan in Hulu Plus and eliminate all ads.

All an all there is tons of content available and there is alwasy something to watch at a much reduced price.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I'm on my last contract. I seriously considered cutting the cord before I signed up for this last one, but decided to wait until my youngest leaves the nest. If I get enough internet speed by then I might do Hulu, Prime, or something similar, if not just OTA.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

koji68:

You don't have to pay monthly with Tivo, you can pay upfront for lifetime service. It is either $399 or $499 (the lesser price if you already have a Tivo) for the lifetime of the receiver, not your lifetime. I know that sounds like a lot of money, but the resale value of used Tivos with lifetime is great. I bought a Tivo Premiere with lifetime for $530 three years ago - $199 for the Tivo, $299 at the older discounted lifetime service price, $30 for a three year extended warranty that runs out any day now. If you look on Ebay there are plenty of people bidding $400 or more for a used Premiere with lifetime. If I sold it today it would be like getting the Tivo for free and paying $3/month. Even the last generation Series 3/HD sells for well over $300 used with lifetime. I honestly don't know why anyone would pay monthly!

I guess the reason so many people do pay monthly is because they don't realize the type of resale value they command, or they're worried they'll pay for lifetime and have it die on them right after the warranty expires. It's possible I could be one of the unlucky few and my Tivo could die next month just after my extended warranty period is over, but I felt comfortable with the decision because I know these things are built really well. There are a lot of Series 2 Tivos still alive and kicking. I owned one for nearly a decade until it finally quit about a year ago.

If you're unhappy with the noise your HTPC makes, you should give Tivo a second look. Mine is very quiet, unless you get within 2-3 feet of it you can't hear it at all even when the TV is off, and it is sitting on an open shelf not a glass cabinet. They are starting to offer discounts on the Premiere a bit more often lately, which probably means there will be a 5th generation model coming out sometime within the next year. Since you would be interested in OTA recording either a used Series 3/HD or a new Premiere (but not the 4 tuner Premiere 4 which can't do OTA) would work for you. If you're fine with the HTPC for now, you might wait a bit for the Series 5 to come out, see what it offers, and see what kind of discounts that may be offered on the Premiere at that time.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I think I've come up with a new plan for my 'cord-cutting' in that I'll 'buy' a couple of HR24s and send my leased boxes back. I'll then only subscribe to DirecTV for Sunday Ticket games and only be paying for 4 months a year. The rest of the year I'll use OTA, NetFlix and Hulu - maybe even get an OTA Tivo. It would be very painful to go back to live OTA commercials and all so I'll have to factor in Tivo costs....

The first year will not save that much because of the money I'd have to spend on Tivo and Hulu but it at current DirecTV prices it doesn't take long to pay for the Tivo hardware and lifetime subscription. Year 2 and on will be a substantial savings with very little lost other than the convenience of DirecTV.

Now I just have to convince the rest of the clan that this is a good idea! With the latest round of screwed updates by DirecTV I'm hoping that won't be too difficult.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

Mike Greer said:


> I think I've come up with a new plan for my 'cord-cutting' in that I'll 'buy' a couple of HR24s and send my leased boxes back. I'll then only subscribe to DirecTV for Sunday Ticket games and only be paying for 4 months a year. The rest of the year I'll use OTA, NetFlix and Hulu - maybe even get an OTA Tivo. It would be very painful to go back to live OTA commercials and all so I'll have to factor in Tivo costs....
> 
> The first year will not save that much because of the money I'd have to spend on Tivo and Hulu but it at current DirecTV prices it doesn't take long to pay for the Tivo hardware and lifetime subscription. Year 2 and on will be a substantial savings with very little lost other than the convenience of DirecTV.
> 
> Now I just have to convince the rest of the clan that this is a good idea! With the latest round of screwed updates by DirecTV I'm hoping that won't be too difficult.


You could just buy a Playstation 3 and get Sunday Ticket that way.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Araxen said:


> You could just buy a Playstation 3 and get Sunday Ticket that way.


Really? I'll have to look into that - could be the answer for me. Thanks!


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Araxen said:


> You could just buy a Playstation 3 and get Sunday Ticket that way.


Looks like it's not quite so easy...

According to the legal speak... "In order to download the Application and access the Service, you must have answered "No" to the question "Are you able to get DIRECTV Satellite Television at your current address?"


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

Mike Greer said:


> Looks like it's not quite so easy...
> 
> According to the legal speak... "In order to download the Application and access the Service, you must have answered "No" to the question "Are you able to get DIRECTV Satellite Television at your current address?"


And therein lies the problem. I looked into a similar setup and actually took the plunge for about a week, but in the end it just wasn't worth it. While its true that you can get a lot of programming in other ways its certainly not intuitive or easy. I basically had created a second hobby for myself. Plus, the ST offering on Ps3 still won't give you access to MNF or TNF games and also costs a bit more than ST through DTV service. I realized that with DTV I'm paying for more than just programming; you can get programming all over the Internet but with DTV you get the best HD picture, up to 5 tuners (depending on your receiver), exclusive sports packages like NFLST, and the convenience of having everything together in one easy-to-use interface. In the end it was simply a better option for me to stay. I am paying a bit more than a straight OTA/Internet option but I get EVERYTHING I need ( not true with Internet options) and its just way more convenient.


----------



## Neilkn (Jul 19, 2008)

I just cut the cord ... and went to AT&T Uverse. I have absolutely no interest in sports, and I do not believe in supporting the outrageous salaries that these idiots get for being full of themselves and mostly obnoxious. We are already screwed by higher prices in everything to support the salaries made by "professional athletes." The reason that I cut the cord though is that Directv told me to. When I called to complain that I was paying $40 more per month than a new customer pays AFTER their one-year promotional price expired, they offered me a $10/month cut. Uhhh ... basic math tells me that I would then be paying $30/month more ... for the same programming package. Oh yeah, I was "grandfathered in" on the previous version of the Select 200 (I think it was called) which was different than the new version ... or so I was told. Strange that comparing the two on line .. they were the same exact channels?? The customer rep for Directv told me if I didn't like it, move on. So I did. Of course, when I called to cancel service AFTER Uverse was installed, they apologized profusely and tried to make me all kinds of offers. I told them it was too late, they should have treated me as a valued customer when I first called .... especially after being with Directv for about 5 years. I'm saving $50/month now overall with AT&T going with Internet, phone, and TV, and moved up from 3 MB Internet (lucky to get 2.5 down) to 18 MB Internet and pulling 17.5 on downloads, and 1.5MB on uploads compared to my previous 300 kb.

The picture is not quite as good quality as it was with Directv ... less sharp, not quite as high definition, though it is HD. We do like the options offered by AT&T better, a better set top box and we don't have to pay even more for the whole house DVR like Directv's Genie. And although pay per view movies aren't quite as good quality, our Apple TV and Netflix movies ARE as good as Blueray disks. We'll stay with AT&T for our 1 year contract, and perhaps the 2nd year as they locked the price in for 2 years with a 1 year contract on our part. Then we'll see who beats who ... Directv or Uverse price-wise. If you have to play the game to be treated decently by them ... so be it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Neilkn said:


> I just cut the cord ... and went to AT&T Uverse. I have absolutely no interest in sports, and I do not believe in supporting the outrageous salaries that these idiots get for being full of themselves and mostly obnoxious. We are already screwed by higher prices in everything to support the salaries made by "professional athletes."
> ...


That's not cutting the cord.

I find it funny you don't "believe in supporting the outrageous salaries that these idiots get for being full of themselves and mostly obnoxious...", but you support TV and movie actors who are pretty much the exact same with "outrageous salaries that these idiots get for being full of themselves and mostly obnoxious."


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

Cutting the cord, in my friends situation, was getting rid of cable TV, DVR, and home phone! She walked into Comcast and cancelled her entire account of 20+ years. She did sign up with Centurylink for internet only and did bundle her Verizon cell phone with them.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Neilkn said:


> I just cut the cord ... and went to AT&T Uverse.
> 
> 
> 
> > That's not cutting the cord.


Agreed. That's switching providers, cord cutting is doing without a pay TV option and using antenna and streaming video for your entertainment offerings.


----------



## ACR_Ted (May 11, 2010)

While I have not yet 'cut the cord' I do have a Roku box and so far I am very happy with it and what I can get from the Internet! A couple of nights ago I watched "Forbidden Planet" via Amazon Prime, and the quality was outstanding....first time I had ever seen it in color and widescreen. It streamed almost perfectly with just the odd dropped frame, and this was during prime time (early evening). Even better was the complete lack of commercials, logos, bugs, ads during the show and other screen clutter. I have given up on all network programming account all of the screen clutter and I have cut back on other programming as the screen clutter gets worse and worse (Nat Geo channel really got bad in the last year or so, along with CNBC and the Science Channel).

Right now my DTV dish has a marginal LNB, and while I will likely buy and install a new one, i am still comparing the two different ways of getting content. I also have a large outdoor antenna that gets over 60 channels (all of the Phoenix and Tucson AZ channels) although about half of them are junk.

We'll see.....

Ted


----------



## Neilkn (Jul 19, 2008)

My apologies, I didn't interpret "cutting the cord" as physically doing so, getting rid of the cable cord, but as breaking away from your ties to a lousy service, or one that doesn't listen to its customers. So I apparently jumped in the wrong place and should have read more. As for supporting the Hollywood version of the greedy, overpaid idiots ... nope, I don't do that either. I watch mostly education type shows, How Did They Do It, How Is It Made, Animal Planet where the cast doesn't get much in the way of wages, and others along that line. No problem though ... I will quietly move on and apologize for mis-interpreting the fan-boys thread. :bang


----------

