# 2017 - My year of the "cord switch"



## phrelin

Our senior household will begin experimenting with the near-exclusive use of internet streaming through CBS All Access and Hulu along with Acorn TV, Amazon Prime Video, Crackle, Feeln, and Netflix. For the first third of the year, we will retain our Dish Network Flex Pack and Locals Pack.

Each day when we try to figure out what to watch on TV, the internet streaming "evolution" (I don't want to call it a "revolution") makes me feel like I walked into this store:










Really, how do you select what to watch when you have a thousand choices? In 2015 we saw a heated discussion develop over a statement by John Landgraf, CEO of the cable channel FX: "There is simply too much television." He had been meticulously keeping count of original scripted TV series offered through traditional TV and from internet streaming services. He's right. The numbers are overwhelming.

For simplicity sake, if one assumes the TV industry airs 400 scripted series with an average of 10 new episodes for the season at an average of 40 minutes an episode, that is 7 hours and 30 minutes of available scripted TV viewing a day 365 days a year. And that ignores the fact that I just did not get around to that new series or seasons released two years ago or last year. Or, horrors, a possibly interesting non-scripted show.

When I realize that the best I could do is watch an average of 3-4 hours a day, it meant not only have I missed half of 2016-17 scripted TV, I also missed half of 2015-16 scripted TV, and half of 2014-15 scripted TV and I will miss half of next year's scripted TV and the year after....

Even more frustrating is that most of those recent episodes I missed are sitting there waiting to be streamed - they don't go away.

To think that in 1962 there were only three networks offering programming three hours a night. And I was disappointed when shows ran opposite each other. I could only watch one in a particular time slot and maybe pick up another in the Summer repeats - we had no recorders, no internet - heck no cable or satellite.

Which brings up the most significant change in TV since HBO was launched as the first successful cable channel of any kind in 1972 - internet TV. Generally referred to as streaming TV, reportedly there are 3,051 "channels" available on my Roku receiver, excluding religious "channels" which apparently number 969. Most of the 4,020 "channels" are useless to me, but who knows how our horizons will expand? People keep saying that "choice" is a benefit of all the changes.

Except, of course, we're stuck in that video store trying to figure out what we are going to watch each night. Can we make that work or in the end will we revert to having the traditional networks to set our viewing schedule, more or less in 1962 style?

And I must monitor internet usage as the nice folks at Comcast, our ISP, have set a data cap of one terabyte (actually 1024 gigabytes).


----------



## Wilf

When we cut the cable, we started with Netflix, then added Acorn and that was all we needed. We have Amazon Video available through our Prime subscription, but have never used. I watch 2-3 hours a day and my wife much more. We tried the CBS all access, but we can't tolerate commercials anymore. We are happy campers.


----------



## Eddie501

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. You don't have to watch _everything. _ In fact, the great thing about this glut of scripted TV is that there's a little something for everybody. You'll find that you're viewing becomes much more discriminating as the choices build up. I'm perfectly happy watching the shows that hold my interest & ignoring the other 80%. Watching TV is not a job you have to complete.


----------



## sigma1914

Wilf said:


> When we cut the cable, we started with Netflix, then added Acorn and that was all we needed. We have Amazon Video available through our Prime subscription, but have never used. I watch 2-3 hours a day and my wife much more. We tried the CBS all access, but we can't tolerate commercials anymore. We are happy campers.


CBS has a commercial free version now for a little extra.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> Our senior household will begin experimenting with the near-exclusive use of internet streaming through CBS All Access and Hulu along with Acorn TV, Amazon Prime Video, Crackle, Feeln, and Netflix. For the first third of the year, we will retain our Dish Network Flex Pack and Locals Pack.
> 
> Each day when we try to figure out what to watch on TV, the internet streaming "evolution" (I don't want to call it a "revolution") makes me feel like I walked into this store:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, how do you select what to watch when you have a thousand choices? In 2015 we saw a heated discussion develop over a statement by John Landgraf, CEO of the cable channel FX: "There is simply too much television." He had been meticulously keeping count of original scripted TV series offered through traditional TV and from internet streaming services. He's right. The numbers are overwhelming.
> 
> For simplicity sake, if one assumes the TV industry airs 400 scripted series with an average of 10 new episodes for the season at an average of 40 minutes an episode, that is 7 hours and 30 minutes of available scripted TV viewing a day 365 days a year. And that ignores the fact that I just did not get around to that new series or seasons released two years ago or last year. Or, horrors, a possibly interesting non-scripted show.
> 
> When I realize that the best I could do is watch an average of 3-4 hours a day, it meant not only have I missed half of 2016-17 scripted TV, I also missed half of 2015-16 scripted TV, and half of 2014-15 scripted TV and I will miss half of next year's scripted TV and the year after....
> 
> Even more frustrating is that most of those recent episodes I missed are sitting there waiting to be streamed - they don't go away.
> 
> To think that in 1962 there were only three networks offering programming three hours a night. And I was disappointed when shows ran opposite each other. I could only watch one in a particular time slot and maybe pick up another in the Summer repeats - we had no recorders, no internet - heck no cable or satellite.
> 
> Which brings up the most significant change in TV since HBO was launched as the first successful cable channel of any kind in 1972 - internet TV. Generally referred to as streaming TV, reportedly there are 3,051 "channels" available on my Roku receiver, excluding religious "channels" which apparently number 969. Most of the 4,020 "channels" are useless to me, but who knows how our horizons will expand? People keep saying that "choice" is a benefit of all the changes.
> 
> Except, of course, we're stuck in that video store trying to figure out what we are going to watch each night. Can we make that work or in the end will we revert to having the traditional networks to set our viewing schedule, more or less in 1962 style?
> 
> And I must monitor internet usage as the nice folks at Comcast, our ISP, have set a data cap of one terabyte (actually 1024 gigabytes).


If it helps, I rarely watch "normal" D* content anymore. NF and AP have so much good content they've made D* kinda superfluous for us. I do use D* for sports and news, but little else. There's simply so much out there to stream...

Rich


----------



## Rich

Wilf said:


> When we cut the cable, we started with Netflix, then added Acorn and that was all we needed. We have Amazon Video available through our Prime subscription, but have never used. I watch 2-3 hours a day and my wife much more. We tried the CBS all access, but we can't tolerate commercials anymore. We are happy campers.


We keep trying to watch D* series but the constant need to skip thru commercials...

Rich


----------



## phrelin

Rich said:


> We keep trying to watch D* series but the constant need to skip thru commercials...
> 
> Rich


I understand your comment. Last night we watched three shows streaming using our Roku that I also had recorded on my Hopper Sunday night.

Using the commercial-free CBS All Access we watched the episode of "Pure Genius" that CBS aired Sunday night and the pilot of "Ransom." I have to agree that streaming the CBS shows without commercials is a better watching experience.

Using the PBS app on our Roku, we watched the new season episode of "Sherlock" which viewed either way would have no commercial breaks in the show. The streaming had one very short commercial prior to the beginning as compared to the longer commercials prior to the beginning of the recording.

I can remember when I thought FF was cool to bypass commercials. Then that skip button was added, and life was even better. But frankly no commercials is the way to go. At my age I hate to waste any of the time I have left trying to skip ads for crap I don't care anything about.

The other thing is that beginning late Sunday night we had one of our rare snow storm - wet snow. The power was out for about two hours, which if it had occurred in prime time would have meant no recordings. The snow piled up on the dish, which by prime time Monday night interfered with reception.

Streaming has a significant advantage:

No power? Sure you can't stream until power is restored (unless you want to watch it on your phone and have enough data capacity). When the power is restored the show will be there to watch.

Snow? If it causes a power outage or your ISP service is interrupted, you might not be able to stream until it's back on. But when it's back on, your show is there to watch.
It's only the 3rd of January, 2017, but I think streaming has already been confirmed as the way to go.

Strangely, Dish Network seems to be saying "we've gotten the message" with their release today of AirTV by Dish's Sling TV which IMHO if you have OTA is going to be the way to go.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> Strangely, Dish Network seems to be saying "we've gotten the message" with their release today of AirTV by Dish's Sling TV which IMHO if you have OTA is going to be the way to go.


I like how their site talks about cutting cable ... no mention of satellite, just cable. 

The OTA module is a good feature ... I expect other streaming boxes will copy the feature.


----------



## phrelin

This past first week of "experimenting with the near-exclusive use of internet streaming" confirms what I anticipated.

With the sole exception of "The Blacklist" on NBC, all the broadcast network shows are available on Hulu or CBS All Access without commercials. It is "a better way" to watch scripted TV, particularly if you are the one who previously had to wield the remote with its "skip" and "FF" buttons. "The Blacklist" may represent the perfect example of a broadcast network show not available. The current season is season 4. The first three seasons are available on Netflix. The first three seasons totaled 67 episodes. That's about 37 too many. IMHO it is one of those American TV shows that should have followed the British model. But I am still watching it, whatever that means.

To watch cable channel content we use our Hopper DVR with a channel package from Dish. It is quite unclear to me how one can watch cable shows streaming either commercial free or with commercial skipping via any of the streaming "channel package" services. The worst case scenario would be to not have cable channel content replacing it with Netflix, Amazon, and Acorn TV all of which are commercial free.

Then there are live events that are best watched "near live" because of the "win" factor like sports. Last night we watched the Golden Globes, skipping commercials. This is accomplished by recording it on the Hopper, watching some using the skip button, putting it on "pause", watching something else streaming on our Roku, then coming back to finish the Globes. It worked fine. Again it is quite unclear to me how one can do that via any of the streaming "channel package" services.

I also checked our internet usage since the first of January and it appears that we'll use around 33% of our Comcast 1TB cap.


----------



## camo

Checked my streaming usage I'm at 197 GB or 2 tenths of TB in 9.5 days. I also have 5 cameras uploading and weather data from weather station in realtime. No data cap here but thought I would report what moderate usage looks like. PSvue, Netflix subscriber.


----------



## SayWhat?

Two years completely TV free, I don't worry about what to not watch.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> This past first week of "experimenting with the near-exclusive use of internet streaming" confirms what I anticipated.
> 
> With the sole exception of "The Blacklist" on NBC, all the broadcast network shows are available on Hulu or CBS All Access without commercials. It is "a better way" to watch scripted TV, particularly if you are the one who previously had to wield the remote with its "skip" and "FF" buttons. "The Blacklist" may represent the perfect example of a broadcast network show not available. The current season is season 4. The first three seasons are available on Netflix. The first three seasons totaled 67 episodes. That's about 37 too many. IMHO it is one of those American TV shows that should have followed the British model. But I am still watching it, whatever that means.


I gave _The Blacklist_ a couple seasons on NF and gave up. I agree with you about the length of the seasons. This is a show that would have benefitted greatly with a season of 13 episodes.

You're so right about the commercials and the need to keep skipping thru them. That's one PITA that I could live without (and I do, I rarely watch D* content, only sports).

Rich


----------



## Supramom2000

What about Outlander, Homeland and other premium channel series? They don't appear on the other viewing options for several seasons.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## phrelin

Supramom2000 said:


> What about Outlander, Homeland and other premium channel series? They don't appear on the other viewing options for several seasons.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


HBO, Showtime, Starz, Epix, etc. are available separately for timely streaming in much the same way and the same cost they are through cable and satellite. You can get "deals" through Hulu, Amazon, etc. They are still premiums but you can stream when the episode airs.


----------



## Supramom2000

I knew about that, it just seems with all the steaming services you are subscribing to, you've reached the same amount of money as paying a provider. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

Supramom2000 said:


> I knew about that, it just seems with all the steaming services you are subscribing to, *you've reached the same amount of money as paying a provider*.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


If you sub to every streaming service that might be true for some folks. If it we didn't have the equipment fees we'd have a whole lot more streaming apps. Fortunately they (the apps) can be activated and deactivated at will.

Rich


----------



## Eddie501

Supramom2000 said:


> I knew about that, it just seems with all the steaming services you are subscribing to, you've reached the same amount of money as paying a provider.


While it's true that the premium networks cost about the same as their cable counterparts, they are much cheaper in that you don't have to have a base package, equipment, and long term contracts. Prior to the launch of HBO now, to get HBO I had to have a base package of commercial infest crap I never watched before I could even think about adding any premiums. And pay an HD fee. A DVR fee. etc etc. I was paying about $80 just to get to the point I could add the channels I really wanted. Now it's just $15.


----------



## phrelin

Supramom2000 said:


> I knew about that, it just seems with all the steaming services you are subscribing to, you've reached the same amount of money as paying a provider.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk





Rich said:


> If you sub to every streaming service that might be true for some folks. If it we didn't have the equipment fees we'd have a whole lot more streaming apps. Fortunately they (the apps) can be activated and deactivated at will.
> 
> Rich





Eddie501 said:


> While it's true that the premium networks cost about the same as their cable counterparts, they are much cheaper in that you don't have to have a base package, equipment, and long term contracts. Prior to the launch of HBO now, to get HBO I had to have a base package of commercial infest crap I never watched before I could even think about adding any premiums. And pay an HD fee. A DVR fee. etc etc. I was paying about $80 just to get to the point I could add the channels I really wanted. Now it's just $15.


The cable channel premiums are what they are. No matter how you acquire your signal, you're going to pay a "premium" for them. But because no matter how you acquire your signal you can drop them, then subscribe for a month or two and catch up on your favorite shows by streaming or using "on demand" they really haven't been part of my calculations. Setting aside the cost of premiums, the streaming choice for us is clearly cheaper at this time.

What I have had to accept is that some of the best "TV" available is on streaming "channels" not through OTA or cable channels. "The Crown" on Netflix is of a quality I would have expected a few years ago as being only available on HBO. And "The OA" on Netflix is unique. Acorn TV has opened a whole new world of television. It's not so much the Brit stuff as it is the Australia/New Zealand shows.

Right now the combination of commercial-free Hulu and CBS All Access, combined with PBS streaming at no cost, provides access to every broadcast network show we regularly watch with the sole exception of "The Blacklist" on NBC. CBS All Access also provides a live stream of our "local" CBS network channel.

The monthly cost for our household for streaming at this time is:










We watch it through a Roku 3 on our main TV and through Apps on the TV in the MBR. I did buy the Roku 3 the cost of which, if amortized over three years would be $2.20 a month.

I haven't yet canceled our Dish subscription which currently provides us with HBO at $10 a month and Showtime at $7.50 a month including streaming. Those prices are actually cheaper than I could stream those premium channels.

Of course, that Dish subscription gives us the cable channels. The thing is we are still watching a few shows on cable channels. If I had access to commercial-free AMC, FX, TNT, and USA programming through streaming without bearing the cost burden of live streaming channels, it would be as close to having perfect access to TV as I can imagine. But I don't.

From a cost standpoint, Dish with a Hopper DVR and the Flex Pack (cable channels only) would cost $47.00 a month (it's $10 more with locals). Given their content and cost (because their owners insist on packages with their other undesirable channels), the cable channels are not even remotely competitive, so they are expendable. I might consider something like the Sling TV Sling Blue package at $25 a month. But it certainly isn't necessary to have a full TV-watching-life. There is so much out there available streaming that we are unable to watch everything we'd like to watch anyway.

The focus has completely shifted from channel-package cost to content cost because of Netflix. So my goal is to buy sufficient content quality. When I drop Dish at the end of this 2016-17 TV traditional season, it is clear that we will pay less for TV than we would for satellite or cable service and have more than enough to watch.

The potential curve ball in all of this has been the question of internet volume costs. Comcast Xfinity, our ISP, has set their cap at a level that we won't confront anytime soon, if ever. So we're paying what we would pay for high speed internet even if we didn't stream a kilobyte of TV.

Strangely, I have not had nearly the problems streaming through Xfinity using a hardwired Roku 3 that I expected. There have been a few times that I have rebooted the Roku and once Acorn TV had problems all night for which they apologized the next day. But when my Dish service dies because the box died or because of snow or because of our slowly growing redwood tree problem, it has at times been far more frustrating.


----------



## Supramom2000

Thanks for the detailed cost layout. I was also adding in Amazon Prime into the monthly costs. Did you cancel that?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## phrelin

Supramom2000 said:


> Thanks for the detailed cost layout. I was also adding in Amazon Prime into the monthly costs. Did you cancel that?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


You're right, of course. Amazon Prime video isn't an additional cost for us because we had Amazon Prime delivery before they started the video service and if they canceled the video service we would still have Amazon Prime. I don't know how one would place a cost on the video service. It most certainly would not be worth the annual cost of Amazon Prime though we do enjoy their limited but generally top quality Prime Video content.


----------



## Rich

We use iTunes, HBO Now, NF, AP. iTunes doesn't have a monthly charge that I know of and AP is something we've had since its inception. So, ~ $11/m for NF, $15/m for HBO Now. I had Showtime for almost a month but never used it and dropped it. Between the four services we spend most of our time on NF. iTunes is used mostly for movies my son has bought. The new movies come to iTunes very quickly. We also have some TV series on that. 

Thing about HBO Now and HBO by Dish or D* (or any cable or satellite provider) is the difference in resolutions. With HBO Now we get a 1080p feed that gives us a much better picture on our 4K sets than what we see on D*'s 1080i feed. 

Rich


----------



## Rich

Unless something changes drastically I don't see us cutting the D* cord. I gotta have a good feed for the Yankees games and D* gives me that. And there's the Jets and Giants to consider. I have to see those games. Wasn't for the sports I'd be gone.

Rich


----------



## phrelin

Rich said:


> ...
> 
> Thing about HBO Now and HBO by Dish or D* (or any cable or satellite provider) is the difference in resolutions. With HBO Now we get a 1080p feed that gives us a much better picture on our 4K sets than what we see on D*'s 1080i feed.
> 
> Rich


That's one thing about our situation. Our "home theater" TV is still our 42" 2003 Panasonic Plasma display which is 720p. I don't know why but I still prefer the picture on it to any new display I've seen including our 46" Samsung in the MBR. It has a softer focus, slightly muted color quality that I like. It doesn't even have an HDMI input so I have to use an HDMI-to-Component converter.

Our "kids" (age 50+) may just be being kind but when they visit they seem to like it for much of what we see on TV. It isn't the best for some sci-fi movies with gazillion dollar graphic effects, but I'm not sure those can be appreciated on anything less than 72" 4K.



Rich said:


> Unless something changes drastically I don't see us cutting the D* cord. I gotta have a good feed for the Yankees games and D* gives me that. And there's the Jets and Giants to consider. I have to see those games. Wasn't for the sports I'd be gone.
> 
> Rich


Fortunately we aren't sports fans. But sports aren't the only thing one must watch more or less live - the spontaneity of last week's Golden Globes would be effectively ruined by the internet news if you waited a day to watch it.

On the other hand, I did record it so that we could watch it delayed, skipping the hundreds of commercials. Right now I don't see an "affordable" solution to that commercial problem if streaming only. A streaming package with decent DVR-like capabilities basically costs as much as a satellite/cable subscription other than for the hardware rental.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> That's one thing about our situation. Our "home theater" TV is still our 42" 2003 Panasonic Plasma display which is 720p. I don't know why but I still prefer the picture on it to any new display I've seen including our 46" Samsung in the MBR. It has a softer focus, slightly muted color quality that I like. It doesn't even have an HDMI input so I have to use an HDMI-to-Component converter.
> 
> Our "kids" (age 50+) may just be being kind but when they visit they seem to like it for much of what we see on TV. It isn't the best for some sci-fi movies with gazillion dollar graphic effects, but I'm not sure those can be appreciated on anything less than 72" 4K.
> 
> Fortunately we aren't sports fans. But sports aren't the only thing one must watch more or less live - the spontaneity of last week's Golden Globes would be effectively ruined by the internet news if you waited a day to watch it.
> 
> On the other hand, I did record it so that we could watch it delayed, skipping the hundreds of commercials. Right now I don't see an "affordable" solution to that commercial problem if streaming only. A streaming package with decent DVR-like capabilities basically costs as much as a satellite/cable subscription other than for the hardware rental.


Big difference between our plasmas and our two 4K sets as far as PQ goes. One is a 65" set and the other a 60" set. 
The sports thing is big for me. I don't watch much live TV, certainly not sports--far too many commercials.

Rich


----------



## Cholly

phrelin said:


> On the other hand, I did record it so that we could watch it delayed, skipping the hundreds of commercials. Right now I don't see an "affordable" solution to that commercial problem if streaming only. A streaming package with decent DVR-like capabilities basically costs as much as a satellite/cable subscription other than for the hardware rental.


Phrelin: A possibility for you might be the TiVo Roamio OTA DVR. Cost is $399, no fees. It has a skip feature for recorded shows, has 1 TB storage and also records such streaming services as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.
Details: TiVo Roamio OTA DVR | Antenna DVR and Streaming | 1TB Storage


----------



## l'Aucherie

Cholly said:


> Phrelin: A possibility for you might be the TiVo Roamio OTA DVR. Cost is $399, no fees. It has a skip feature for recorded shows, has 1 TB storage and also records such streaming services as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.
> Details: TiVo Roamio OTA DVR | Antenna DVR and Streaming | 1TB Storage


Are you sure that it records Netflix, Hulu and Amazon as well as OTA? That is not stated explicitly on the website you provided the link for.


----------



## jimmie57

l'Aucherie said:


> Are you sure that it records Netflix, Hulu and Amazon as well as OTA? That is not stated explicitly on the website you provided the link for.


The TiVo Roamio OTA DVR was built for those looking for a cable experience on antenna TV. It works with any HD antenna, delivers one terabyte of recording capacity (150 HD hours), has SkipMode™ and QuickMode™ and also integrates all your streaming content from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, YouTube, Pandora and more. Best of all, it's now available without a monthly TiVo service fee. Pay once and the rest is all free-TV gravy.

From the first tab on the left on the website.


----------



## phrelin

Cholly said:


> Phrelin: A possibility for you might be the TiVo Roamio OTA DVR. Cost is $399, no fees. It has a skip feature for recorded shows, has 1 TB storage and also records such streaming services as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.
> Details: TiVo Roamio OTA DVR | Antenna DVR and Streaming | 1TB Storage


Yes, I've looked at those with great frustration.

My problem is we don't have OTA. It's one of the downsides to living in an mountainous area where the network stations broadcast off of towers the closest of which is 140 miles away. One upside is we don't have the automobile traffic our kids put up with daily, I keep reminding myself.


----------



## Glen_D

Cholly said:


> Phrelin: A possibility for you might be the TiVo Roamio OTA DVR. Cost is $399, no fees. It has a skip feature for recorded shows, has 1 TB storage and also records such streaming services as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.
> Details: TiVo Roamio OTA DVR | Antenna DVR and Streaming | 1TB Storage





l'Aucherie said:


> Are you sure that it records Netflix, Hulu and Amazon as well as OTA? That is not stated explicitly on the website you provided the link for.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but I personally see little value in being able to record streaming content, unless it is a live broadcast. So for OTA, definitely yes. But do the streaming services like Netflix, HULU, Amazon, etc. offer much, if anything, in the way of live streaming that is not available on-demand?

Now, I know streamed shows and events may get pulled at some point, so some viewers may want to archive certain streaming content for viewing at a much later date. In that case, I would probably look for something that could be archived on some type of media, like a DVD, for example.


----------



## Rich

Glen_D said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I personally see little value in being able to record streaming content, unless it is a live broadcast. So for OTA, definitely yes. But do the streaming services like Netflix, HULU, Amazon, etc. offer much, if anything, in the way of live streaming that is not available on-demand?
> 
> Now, I know streamed shows and events may get pulled at some point, so some viewers may want to archive certain streaming content for viewing at a much later date. In that case, I would probably look for something that could be archived on some type of media, like a DVD, for example.


You can archive the content on a laptop or tablet...or can you? I seem to recall something about NF not allowing downloads to computers, just tablets or phones.

Aside from content being taken off one of the streaming services I see no reason to record or archive content from the streaming services.

Rich


----------



## Wilf

I agree. Especially so now, that at least some programs can be downloaded and viewed when you have no broadband.


----------



## Rich

Wilf said:


> I agree. Especially so now, that at least some programs can be downloaded and viewed *when you have no broadband*.


Happen often?

Rich


----------



## Eddie501

Netflix only allows download onto mobile devices in case you want to watch on a bus or an airplane without using your mobile data. Even then, it self deletes after a certain time period. You can not record streaming on the Tivo. The only benefit to including streaming on a Tivo box is that it integrates into the guide data & lets you set up season passes for streaming shows. Then they show up in your list just as recorded programs do. Clicking on them short cuts you to the service rather than having to use the Netflix interfact to get to a show.


----------



## Cholly

Y'know? I forgot all about Roku. All sorts of streaming possibilities there, many of which are free.


----------



## sabrewulf

Cholly said:


> Y'know? I forgot all about Roku. All sorts of streaming possibilities there, many of which are free.


I just got a Roku recently. Love that thing.


----------



## Rich

sabrewulf said:


> I just got a Roku recently. Love that thing.


I'm waiting for a Roku Ultra to arrive. I hope this one works with one of my 4K sets. The last iteration didn't.

Rich


----------



## hasan

Rich said:


> I'm waiting for a Roku Ultra to arrive. I hope this one works with one of my 4K sets. The last iteration didn't.
> 
> Rich


Rich,

How did you make out with the Roku and the 4K?

I tried one and it was a disaster. It had horrible lip sync issues....could not be resolved on my Sammy 4k. I switched back to my Roku Stick...no lip sync problems at all viewing the same material. Returned next day, saved about $80.


----------



## mjwagner

I ditched my Roku's and switched to FireTV boxes. Mainly because the PSVue interface is MUCH better on the FireTV box. The current Version of the FireTV box fully supports 4K. I don't have any 4K sets, yet, so I can't comment on actual performance but they get positive reviews.


----------



## Rich

hasan said:


> Rich,
> 
> How did you make out with the Roku and the 4K?
> 
> I tried one and it was a disaster. It had horrible lip sync issues....could not be resolved on my Sammy 4k. I switched back to my Roku Stick...no lip sync problems at all viewing the same material. Returned next day, saved about $80.


Aww, I wasn't gonna go into what happened, but I will. I got a Roku Ultra figuring if it's the most expensive it must be good. It wasn't. What I got was a really screwed up picture on the Sammy 8000. Using NF, I compared the PQ between the Ultra and the TV's NF app. On the TV app I could see strands of hair on people's heads and on the NF app on the Roku Ultra the hair on people's heads looked like helmets. That went back the same day it arrived. Then, I tried a Roku Premier that Costco had. Better picture but still not nearly as good as the PQ on the TV app and a FTV box with NF. Not nearly as bad as the Roku Ultra, but I don't like settling and took that back too. I'm done with Rokus. I think I've tried four of them since I got the first 4K set and none of them put out a picture that was as good as the TV apps or the ATV4 apps or the FTV box apps. Needless to say I'm disappointed and frustrated. Just found out that the ATV5 will be introduced this year with 4K support. I will buy one of them. I will also wait until the new FTV boxes are introduced and try one of them. Something has to work well.

Rich


----------



## phrelin

For me, "cord-switching" to streaming has been a process of learning how to schedule the unscheduled.

I'm old and I'm used to the network channels offering up their nightly schedules. For over 60 years that meant even in the DVR era watching TV series more or less within a few days after episodes air.

Yes, choices regarding what shows to watch had to be made even in 1951, but at the beginning of the Fall Season, the Winter Season, and the Summer Season.

Netflix changed that. They will release all 10 episodes of a series season on a Friday. A few weeks later they might release 8 episodes of another series on a Friday. Next month the same kind of thing occurs. Amazon joined them, although they don't release as many shows, so far. Acorn TV tends to release two episodes a week of a new series, but will will release three seasons of an older Australian series all at once.

Apparently Millennials, and others, binge watch these series, meaning they might watch anything from 3 episodes to a whole "season" in a day. In our learning process we've tried this.

Two things about binge watching. The weekly episodes of network TV pile up. And it leaves one with an empty feeling when...

you finish a "season" of a good show in two days,
you know next season has been ordered, and
you know it might be 8 months or 18 months before the next season is released.
Because of the Netflix system, "cord-switching" is giving me a whole new set of headaches. But I think I'm getting a handle on it.

Fortunately, Hulu, CBS All Access, PBS, HBO, and Showtime continue to provide weekly episodes of the shows we've been watching on "regular" TV, some shows for over a decade like "NCIS." And they release for streaming each episode of these shows the day after it airs. This allows one to schedule those shows in an orderly manner pretty much as we did in 1998.

There are some "problems" with this when you have ingrained viewing habits. As I mentioned elsewhere, "CBS Sunday Morning" has been a Sunday breakfast companion since 1979. CBS All Access does provide it to us but late at 10:30 am. Even though that is more generous than if they had waited until Monday morning, it makes it late for Sunday breakfast. And HBO holds the Friday night episode of "Real Time" until Saturday. Still, one can schedule around these "problems."

But once those weekly shows are listed in a schedule, a new "problem" appears - the amount of viewing time remaining in which to watch shows from streaming-only sources like Acorn TV, Amazon, and Netflix is inadequate.

The solution is to treat all these viewing sources as "channels" and intersperse that programming into the viewing schedule. The channel _Hulu_ replaces the listings for ABC, Fox, and NBC. _CBS All Access_ replaces the listings for CBS.

It becomes obvious that if we want to start watching new episodes of "Bosch" when they are released by Amazon on April 21 we will have to reduce by one series the broadcast network programming we watch.

And because many shows, particularly those from other countries, have a "season" of six episodes, we need to know in advance when event programming like March Madness college basketball preempts a significant amount CBS programming for at least a couple of weeks. And we need to be ready to intersperse episodes from Acorn TV or Netflix shows for those weeks in which broadcast network shows are either not on or in reruns.

The other reality is when we sit down to watch TV, we cannot grab this week's TV Guide magazine like we did in olden days like in 1960:










Instead, for adequate planning I had to create my own version of a TV guide scheduling system, which I keep redesigning:










As I noted in elsewhere, I have hopes that some of the cable channels will find a way to transition their programs conveniently into the streaming world without blowing up the streaming economic model. Right now they are locked into costly streaming packages that are equivalent to cable packages.

What I'm considering and testing is what it would feel like to not watch cable channel original programming, replacing it with that from streaming sources. It's difficult to just drop shows we've watched for several years. But streaming-only sources for original programming like Netflix do adequately provide replacements for the relatively few cable series we view.

Still, it's tough at any age to break old habits. When you're a TV viewer who remembers watching TV in 1951, it is difficult.


----------



## Wilf

Maybe because I have been geeky my whole life, but cutting the cord was not a problem for me (I am in my eighties). I love binge watching, and would not want it any other way. I find that Netflix and AcornTV provide way more to watch than I have time for.


----------



## phrelin

Wilf said:


> Maybe because I have been geeky my whole life, but cutting the cord was not a problem for me (I am in my eighties). I love binge watching, and would not want it any other way. I find that Netflix and AcornTV provide way more to watch than I have time for.


You are right, Netflix and AcornTV provide more than enough to watch for most of us. And if you happen to be an Amazon Prime subscriber, you even have a free backup you don't need.

But I just can't handle binge watching. I get annoyed when I spend too much time with most characters. But that's how I feel about people generally. What can I say...


----------



## billsharpe

We are not binge watchers either. In fact most two-hour movies get watched over two nights. We spend more time reading than watching TV.


----------



## phrelin

One of the gnawing anxieties about going to streaming versus satellite/cable bundle is the fact that you can't get non-premium cable channels streaming except also in a bundle and frankly that adds $25+ per month or $300+ per year to the cost.

Being a scripted TV fan, as I approach the time when I cut the cord, I'm struggling a bit as we watch "The Americans" on FX and know that the new season of "Fargo" will start soon. In fact, I've learned that the last season of those shows are available at no cost - "The Americans" on Amazon Prime Video and "Fargo" on Hulu.

As I noted above I'm finding that with original shows on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and CBS All Access plus the excellent offerings on AcornTV, I simply will have to adjust to these shows becoming the substitute for new regular cable shows. And then I just have to pay attention to when regular cable shows that I am addicted to become available on Netflix, Amazon, or Hulu.

I'm having a very hard time finding a reason to spend more than this $36/mo for streaming choices on a regular basis plus adding on a premium channel when there is a series I want to watch (this month that would have been HBO and Showtime):










This gives me my local CBS channel streaming live which I probably would never watch. I don't have to worry about a failing DVR or a cloud recording expiring. And so far since January there have been only a few times when streaming something jammed up, always an "app specific" occurrence which clears up eventually though sometimes I have to watch something else and then come back. That's far better than when a show didn't record on my Dish DVR and there wasn't another chance to record it.

I'm feeling a little guilty about PBS even though they do make us sit through an ad at the beginning of the show. I guess I could send them a donation now and then.

But overall, when we cut the cord this will be the cheapest TV has been for us since we moved into this house in 1988 and got our C-band dish through the local Echostar dealer.

I wonder what's going to screw it up in the future....


----------



## phrelin

Update again. I guess I have to add Thursday NFL to the Amazon Prime offerings.


----------



## Eddie501

This is pretty much my lineup too. I love that my streaming package is a completely commercial free environment. One of the things I loathe about basic cable is not only the ads themselves but that how the advertisers actually influence programming decisions. Which is one of the reasons it's turned into such a cesspool.

The other thing rarely mentioned is that streaming is much higher quality than cable. All of Netflix & Amazon's originals are in 4K & a lot with HDR. There aren't any hashtags, station bugs (except on Hulu but they disappear if you watch on a Roku), blocks of text telling you what you're watching and what comes up next, animated promos etc. Just a much more enjoyable experience all around. Even the handful of must-see basic cable shows look and sound much better if you buy them on Vudu the day after they air.


----------



## phrelin

Eddie501 said:


> This is pretty much my lineup too. I love that my streaming package is a completely commercial free environment. One of the things I loathe about basic cable is not only the ads themselves but that how the advertisers actually influence programming decisions. Which is one of the reasons it's turned into such a cesspool.
> 
> The other thing rarely mentioned is that streaming is much higher quality than cable. All of Netflix & Amazon's originals are in 4K & a lot with HDR. There aren't any hashtags, station bugs (except on Hulu but they disappear if you watch on a Roku), blocks of text telling you what you're watching and what comes up next, animated promos etc. Just a much more enjoyable experience all around. Even the handful of must-see basic cable shows look and sound much better if you buy them on Vudu the day after they air.


You really did describe the high points of streaming from the independent streaming "channels" like Netflix and Amazon:

no advertisements nor advertiser influence
no promo crap on the screen
typically a high quality picture.
And thanks for reminding me about Vudu. Between Amazon Video (paid non-Prime shows) and Vudu it would seem I really don't need a cable-like bundle subscription like Sling TV Blue with the cloud DVR at $30 a month. For instance, I want to watch upcoming season 3 of "Fargo." I can get it the full season at Vudu for less than one month's cost for a bundle.

The one thing I have going for me is we watch TV on our old 42" 720p Pany Plasma. Frankly there is almost no visible difference between SD and higher definition streams. So buying a season of something is about ½-month's bundle. "Fargo" is released over a period of 10 weeks. What I'm getting to understand is that if I wanted to on an ongoing basis I could buy/rent 4 basic cable shows without commercials to ff through or on-screen promos.

It really is a new world for TV.


----------



## Supramom2000

Have you found anyone who place WB programming? Like Supergirl, Arrow and Flash?

My probem with cord cutting is then being limited to the TVs that have the Fire TV or Roku or whatever. We use 4 TVs and actually have 5.


----------



## phrelin

Supramom2000 said:


> Have you found anyone who place WB programming? Like Supergirl, Arrow and Flash?
> 
> My problem with cord cutting is then being limited to the TVs that have the Fire TV or Roku or whatever. We use 4 TVs and actually have 5.


The CW shows represents the pay or wait dilemma for many streamers.

Netflix offers _at no extra cost_ 1 season of "Supergirl", 4 seasons of "Arrow", and 2 seasons of "The Flash". But the seasons are all past seasons.

However, as an example you can get a "Season Pass" for the current 22 episode season of "Supergirl" for $40 at Amazon or Vudu. You "own" the season for whatever that's worth.

The multiple TV problem is a problem. Were you to buy all new TV's, you could get TV's that offer built-in App functionality. Otherwise, yep, you've got to get a device connected to the old ones.


----------



## Newshawk

I've been contemplating cutting the cord lately. I have Cox cable in a TV/phone/internet bundle that is costing me $243 a month! I would only need to purchase a Roku stick to have all my TVs ready for OTT as I have a TCL 55" 4K Roku TV in the living room now. I have been trying to find a service that provides both BBC America (for Doctor Who) and Fox News Channel. Hulu's new live service has FNC but not BBCA. Sling TV has BBCA but not FNC. I just looked at the new service from DTV and it has both! While I have my reasons for not wanting to go with the blue Death Star I have to admit that, for now, it makes the most sense. I guess I'll be giving Cox a call sometime in the next few weeks (after I get my next paycheck.)


----------



## phrelin

In previous posts, I offered my belief that 2017 would be the year our household would shift to streaming TV only.

For over six months I have been experimenting with it. As of June 2017, I am comfortable stating that while the time for streaming-only TV for many is here, for many others streaming-only is not quite "ready for prime time." The television content industry is still hung up in the past, partly because of the simplest of an American religious value - greed is good.

One of my primary goals when shifting to streaming was to get rid of commercials. Indeed, today you can subscribe to more than enough content commercial-free. Consider this:










Admittedly, Amazon Prime Video is shown at $0.00 because we were Amazon Prime subscribers for a year before they added video. And - this is ironic - PBS does show a commercial before and after each show.

There are other weirdness's. CBS All Access does, occasionally, insert commercials for other CBS shows but they give most subscribers live streaming access to their local CBS affiliate. Cable premium channels like HBO Showtime and Starz do the same at the beginning of each show.

Licensing restrictions prevents Hulu from carrying NBC's "The Blacklist" and requires them to show one commercial before and after episodes of ABC's "Grey's Anatomy."

Nonetheless the list above represents the streaming "commercial free" environment available on line.

With almost no exceptions everything that appears in prime time broadcast TV on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and PBS can be streamed the day after it airs. Additionally past episodes and seasons are available. And original programming not available elsewhere is offered by CBS All Access and Hulu.

The truth is that through streaming you can view without commercials thousands of episodes of both current and past TV shows, exclusive original shows, and movies. So why wouldn't you switch to all streaming, aka _cut the cord_?

There is no good reason other than the "basic cable channel dilemma" which really is about resistance to change based on economics.

The dilemma involves so-called basic cable channels such as these top 50 from 2015 ranked by their seven-day averages in primetime total viewers: ESPN: 2.022 million, TBS: 1.876 million, USA: 1.850 million, Disney: 1.784 million, Fox News: 1.775 million, TNT: 1.766 million, Discovery: 1.549 million, History: 1.536 million, HGTV: 1.498 million, AMC: 1.443 million, Adult Swim: 1.307 million, FX: 1.251 million, Food Network: 1.129 million, Lifetime: 1.065 million, Nick at Nite: 1.027 million, Syfy: 1.006 million, ABC Family: 985,000, A&E: 959,000, TLC: 944,000, ID: 891,000, Hallmark: 881,000, Bravo: 872,000, Spike: 790,000, CNN: 672,000, Animal Planet: 652,000, Disney Junior: 644,000, VH1: 642,000, TV Land: 608,000, MTV: 606,000, BET: 598,000, MSNBC: 576,000, Comedy Central: 569,000, E!: 568,000, National Geographic Channel: 544,000* (rounded tie), OWN: 544,000* (rounded tie), WETV: 523,000, truTV: 476,000, Lifetime Movie Network: 462,000, Nick Jr.: 440,000, Travel: 438,000, GSN: 434,000, ESPN2: 432,000, FXX: 413,000, Hallmark Movies: 410,000, FS1: 406,000, INSP: 389,000, NBCSN: 381,000, CNBC: 375,000, Disney XD: 370,000, H2: 348,000.

These and the other several hundred other "basic cable channels" offer programming that many watch.

If you a sports fan, ESPN and other sports channels are likely important to you. Also the fact is you won't even be able to watch live games on ABC, Fox, and NBC, and sometimes on CBS. If you're into reality TV or nature shows the key channels are among those listed.

And some popular scripted programming is offered by cable channels which impacts me.

If you want to "cord switch" but need basic cable channels there are varied streaming choices that address the dilemma, most now offering a cloud DVR. In my opinion, particularly if sports is your thing, Hulu with Live TV for $39.99 plus $4.00 for commercial-free Hulu streaming should be considered first. It adds $32 a month to your commercial-free Hulu. For me, Hulu with Live TV would not give access to some cable channels offering scripted TV and I have no need for live channel streaming.

Other options include the PS Vue offering the most complete set of services available, AT&T's DirecTV Now which has advantages with your AT&T cell phone wireless service but has no DVR and limitations with regard to those boxes that deliver the signal to your TV, and YouTube TV which doesn't play well with others but is perfect if you are 100% Google/Android and the content options are adequate.

At $25 plus $5 for the cloud DVR feature, the Blue Package with Sling TV would give me the least expensive choice for a "full cord switch" with a lot of add-on options that I wouldn't use.

_*But there is that pesky commercial skipping problem with shows like "The Amercans" and "Fargo" on FX.*_

You see at this time that the ability to fast forward and rewind through commercials on streaming services is restricted by the complexities of network contracts with service providers affecting every choice out there. For instance, based on what I know at this time, FX and other Fox-owned channels simply don't allow skipping commercials on shows you've recorded to your DVR cloud. Since I don't want to revert back to the 1970's, that's a deal breaker.

Further, because of contract provisions, occasionally special event live programming is not allowed by the content producer/owner to be streamed.

Finally, that sports fan who likes to watch live - but rewind and fast forward during the game - could be frustrated because even the systems that allow FF/RW on live events are kludgy. This even varies between "devices" used to access streaming content.

You need to evaluate channel availability, cost, and convenience. I ended up staying with Dish Network because of pricing of the Flex Pack, a number of discount offers and a zero-cost DVR system - the Wally. It meets my current needs, but that is likely to change over time. Here is how it all ends up with my choices:










That $22.81 is a lot to pay for the right to record and commercial skip on a relatively few basic cable shows. This is cheaper than obtaining TV completely through satellite/cable services or streaming services, particularly with the premium cable channels, plus having a streaming subscription from Netflix. And it is mostly streaming commercial-free.

Finally, binge-watching a full season of a show before watching another show just doesn't mesh with our TV viewing habits. In our lifetime, the TV channels scheduled the programming from which we simply picked a show to watch in any particular period of time. We are used to watching an episode a week of any one show, most of the time.

So I have to schedule TV viewing along with scheduling recordings on the basic cable channels, using a schedule which I keep on my website that currently looks like this:










In my opinion streaming is a better option, bring with it commercial-free television and a better sense that no major economic interests like pro sports can obtain from me an exorbitant monthly fee for nothing.

But for me, 2017 will be the year of the cord switch ... except for....


----------



## boukengreen

phrelin said:


> In previous posts, I offered my belief that 2017 would be the year our household would shift to streaming TV only.
> 
> For over six months I have been experimenting with it. As of June 2017, I am comfortable stating that while the time for streaming-only TV for many is here, for many others streaming-only is not quite "ready for prime time." The television content industry is still hung up in the past, partly because of the simplest of an American religious value - greed is good.
> 
> One of my primary goals when shifting to streaming was to get rid of commercials. Indeed, today you can subscribe to more than enough content commercial-free. Consider this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly, Amazon Prime Video is shown at $0.00 because we were Amazon Prime subscribers for a year before they added video. And - this is ironic - PBS does show a commercial before and after each show.
> 
> There are other weirdness's. CBS All Access does, occasionally, insert commercials for other CBS shows but they give most subscribers live streaming access to their local CBS affiliate. Cable premium channels like HBO Showtime and Starz do the same at the beginning of each show.
> 
> Licensing restrictions prevents Hulu from carrying NBC's "The Blacklist" and requires them to show one commercial before and after episodes of ABC's "Grey's Anatomy."
> 
> Nonetheless the list above represents the streaming "commercial free" environment available on line.
> 
> With almost no exceptions everything that appears in prime time broadcast TV on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and PBS can be streamed the day after it airs. Additionally past episodes and seasons are available. And original programming not available elsewhere is offered by CBS All Access and Hulu.
> 
> The truth is that through streaming you can view without commercials thousands of episodes of both current and past TV shows, exclusive original shows, and movies. So why wouldn't you switch to all streaming, aka _cut the cord_?
> 
> There is no good reason other than the "basic cable channel dilemma" which really is about resistance to change based on economics.
> 
> The dilemma involves so-called basic cable channels such as these top 50 from 2015 ranked by their seven-day averages in primetime total viewers: ESPN: 2.022 million, TBS: 1.876 million, USA: 1.850 million, Disney: 1.784 million, Fox News: 1.775 million, TNT: 1.766 million, Discovery: 1.549 million, History: 1.536 million, HGTV: 1.498 million, AMC: 1.443 million, Adult Swim: 1.307 million, FX: 1.251 million, Food Network: 1.129 million, Lifetime: 1.065 million, Nick at Nite: 1.027 million, Syfy: 1.006 million, ABC Family: 985,000, A&E: 959,000, TLC: 944,000, ID: 891,000, Hallmark: 881,000, Bravo: 872,000, Spike: 790,000, CNN: 672,000, Animal Planet: 652,000, Disney Junior: 644,000, VH1: 642,000, TV Land: 608,000, MTV: 606,000, BET: 598,000, MSNBC: 576,000, Comedy Central: 569,000, E!: 568,000, National Geographic Channel: 544,000* (rounded tie), OWN: 544,000* (rounded tie), WETV: 523,000, truTV: 476,000, Lifetime Movie Network: 462,000, Nick Jr.: 440,000, Travel: 438,000, GSN: 434,000, ESPN2: 432,000, FXX: 413,000, Hallmark Movies: 410,000, FS1: 406,000, INSP: 389,000, NBCSN: 381,000, CNBC: 375,000, Disney XD: 370,000, H2: 348,000.
> 
> These and the other several hundred other "basic cable channels" offer programming that many watch.
> 
> If you a sports fan, ESPN and other sports channels are likely important to you. Also the fact is you won't even be able to watch live games on ABC, Fox, and NBC, and sometimes on CBS. If you're into reality TV or nature shows the key channels are among those listed.
> 
> And some popular scripted programming is offered by cable channels which impacts me.
> 
> If you want to "cord switch" but need basic cable channels there are varied streaming choices that address the dilemma, most now offering a cloud DVR. In my opinion, particularly if sports is your thing, Hulu with Live TV for $39.99 plus $4.00 for commercial-free Hulu streaming should be considered first. It adds $32 a month to your commercial-free Hulu. For me, Hulu with Live TV would not give access to some cable channels offering scripted TV and I have no need for live channel streaming.
> 
> Other options include the PS Vue offering the most complete set of services available, AT&T's DirecTV Now which has advantages with your AT&T cell phone wireless service but has no DVR and limitations with regard to those boxes that deliver the signal to your TV, and YouTube TV which doesn't play well with others but is perfect if you are 100% Google/Android and the content options are adequate.
> 
> At $25 plus $5 for the cloud DVR feature, the Blue Package with Sling TV would give me the least expensive choice for a "full cord switch" with a lot of add-on options that I wouldn't use.
> 
> _*But there is that pesky commercial skipping problem with shows like "The Amercans" and "Fargo" on FX.*_
> 
> You see at this time that the ability to fast forward and rewind through commercials on streaming services is restricted by the complexities of network contracts with service providers affecting every choice out there. For instance, based on what I know at this time, FX and other Fox-owned channels simply don't allow skipping commercials on shows you've recorded to your DVR cloud. Since I don't want to revert back to the 1970's, that's a deal breaker.
> 
> Further, because of contract provisions, occasionally special event live programming is not allowed by the content producer/owner to be streamed.
> 
> Finally, that sports fan who likes to watch live - but rewind and fast forward during the game - could be frustrated because even the systems that allow FF/RW on live events are kludgy. This even varies between "devices" used to access streaming content.
> 
> You need to evaluate channel availability, cost, and convenience. I ended up staying with Dish Network because of pricing of the Flex Pack, a number of discount offers and a zero-cost DVR system - the Wally. It meets my current needs, but that is likely to change over time. Here is how it all ends up with my choices:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That $22.81 is a lot to pay for the right to record and commercial skip on a relatively few basic cable shows. This is cheaper than obtaining TV completely through satellite/cable services or streaming services, particularly with the premium cable channels, plus having a streaming subscription from Netflix. And it is mostly streaming commercial-free.
> 
> Finally, binge-watching a full season of a show before watching another show just doesn't mesh with our TV viewing habits. In our lifetime, the TV channels scheduled the programming from which we simply picked a show to watch in any particular period of time. We are used to watching an episode a week of any one show, most of the time.
> 
> So I have to schedule TV viewing along with scheduling recordings on the basic cable channels, using a schedule which I keep on my website that currently looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion streaming is a better option, bring with it commercial-free television and a better sense that no major economic interests like pro sports can obtain from me an exorbitant monthly fee for nothing.
> 
> But for me, 2017 will be the year of the cord switch ... except for....


Good reason number 1 for someone not to go streaming only is only internet is slow DSL or Low data limits to where you can't stream all month long


----------



## phrelin

boukengreen said:


> Good reason number 1 for someone not to go streaming only is only internet is slow DSL or Low data limits to where you can't stream all month long


Absolutely true. You can't stream internet television content without a fixed terrestrial fast internet service. The rock bottom reliable speed needed is 10 Mbps. At least 25 Mbps is preferable.

The FCC in January 2016 issued a report finding that: 

10 percent of all Americans (34 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps service;
6 percent of all Americans (20 million people) lack access to 10 Mbps service; and,
31 percent of rural Americans (15 million people) lack access to 10 Mbps service.
The report also indicates that: 

10 percent of Americans have no options for 25 Mbps service;
51 percent of Americans have only one option for a provider of 25 Mbps service; while only
38 percent of Americans have more than one option for 25 Mbps.
The bad news for streaming television is that report is misleading and the numbers who have access to 25 Mbps service aren't that high. The good news is that about 90% of Americans do have access to a fixed terrestrial fast internet 10+ Mbps service, though reliability isn't always what it should be. Whether costs are reasonable is a separate issue.

We have service that usually exceeds 80 Mbps but it isn't cheap. For our household, high speed internet is an essential utility unrelated to TV. So it isn't a cost of streaming TV, unless we were to exceed Comcast/Xfinity's 1TB data streaming cap.

During this experimental period, we have been streaming about four hours a night, seven days a week, plus we use the internet heavily during the day. Here is our last three months of usage according to Comcast/Xfinity:









For internet service costs to be an issue for us, we would have to use five times our current usage.


----------



## mjwagner

Newshawk said:


> I've been contemplating cutting the cord lately. I have Cox cable in a TV/phone/internet bundle that is costing me $243 a month! I would only need to purchase a Roku stick to have all my TVs ready for OTT as I have a TCL 55" 4K Roku TV in the living room now. I have been trying to find a service that provides both BBC America (for Doctor Who) and Fox News Channel. Hulu's new live service has FNC but not BBCA. Sling TV has BBCA but not FNC. I just looked at the new service from DTV and it has both! While I have my reasons for not wanting to go with the blue Death Star I have to admit that, for now, it makes the most sense. I guess I'll be giving Cox a call sometime in the next few weeks (after I get my next paycheck.)


At least in my area PSVue has both BBCA and FNC in even the lowest, least expensive, package. One note of caution, the PSVue UI is the worst on Roku, the best IMHO on FireTV. I have a TCL TV (added a FireTV stick) and 2 Roku boxes that I don't use anymore because I switched to FireTV.


----------



## boukengreen

phrelin said:


> Absolutely true. You can't stream internet television content without a fixed terrestrial fast internet service. The rock bottom reliable speed needed is 10 Mbps. At least 25 Mbps is preferable.
> 
> The FCC in January 2016 issued a report finding that:
> 
> 10 percent of all Americans (34 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps service;
> 6 percent of all Americans (20 million people) lack access to 10 Mbps service; and,
> 31 percent of rural Americans (15 million people) lack access to 10 Mbps service.
> The report also indicates that:
> 
> 10 percent of Americans have no options for 25 Mbps service;
> 51 percent of Americans have only one option for a provider of 25 Mbps service; while only
> 38 percent of Americans have more than one option for 25 Mbps.
> The bad news for streaming television is that report is misleading and the numbers who have access to 25 Mbps service aren't that high. The good news is that about 90% of Americans do have access to a fixed terrestrial fast internet 10+ Mbps service, though reliability isn't always what it should be. Whether costs are reasonable is a separate issue.
> 
> We have service that usually exceeds 80 Mbps but it isn't cheap. For our household, high speed internet is an essential utility unrelated to TV. So it isn't a cost of streaming TV, unless we were to exceed Comcast/Xfinity's 1TB data streaming cap.
> 
> During this experimental period, we have been streaming about four hours a night, seven days a week, plus we use the internet heavily during the day. Here is our last three months of usage according to Comcast/Xfinity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For internet service costs to be an issue for us, we would have to use five times our current usage.


I'm one of the ones that live in rural America and my max internet speed is 1.5Mbps down and for me to reliably watch WWE events I have to put my phone in my window and use it as a mobile hot spot and even then a couple times an hour I will still have a 1-3 second pause


----------



## phrelin

boukengreen said:


> I'm one of the ones that live in rural America and my max internet speed is 1.5Mbps down and for me to reliably watch WWE events I have to put my phone in my window and use it as a mobile hot spot and even then a couple times an hour I will still have a 1-3 second pause


You mention the system that likely will give many rural areas sufficient reliable internet speeds over the next two decades - cell phones.

I too am in a rural area which AT&T abandoned in terms of high speed internet but, for reasons mostly due to luck helped by me being pushy early on, we and the few residents within a few blocks of a cross-county Comcast cable have high speed internet. However it is not cheap and there is no competition.

So I hope that "5G" combined with the competitive pressures in the cellular industry will lead to 99%+ availability to American homes of reliable 50 Mbps+ access without excessive charges. Admittedly, even 1% would be a lot of homes, but I would hope they would be only those the owner chooses to live "off the grid", way off the grid.


----------



## lparsons21

It would take a sea change in how they do business for cell data to make much sense for heavy data users. 'unlimited' today with cell phones isn't unlimited high speed internet you know.

Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

phrelin said:


> I too am in a rural area which AT&T abandoned in terms of high speed internet but, for reasons mostly due to luck helped by me being pushy early on, we and the few residents within a few blocks of a cross-county Comcast cable have high speed internet. However it is not cheap and there is no competition..


Kudos to you for your initiative!!!!!


----------



## Rich

mjwagner said:


> At least in my area PSVue has both BBCA and FNC in even the lowest, least expensive, package. One note of caution, the PSVue UI is the worst on Roku, the best IMHO on FireTV. I have a TCL TV (added a FireTV stick) and 2 Roku boxes that I don't use anymore because I switched to FireTV.


I've tried the new Rokus and they don't put out the picture that a FTV2 does, I think. And the FTV2 doesn't put out as good a picture as the ATV4s we have. I really was disappointed by the Rokus. They went back right away, the PQ wasn't nearly as good as my TV apps.

Rich


----------



## Rich

boukengreen said:


> I'm one of the ones that live in rural America and my max internet speed is 1.5Mbps down and for me to reliably watch WWE events I have to put my phone in my window and use it as a mobile hot spot and even then a couple times an hour I will still have a 1-3 second pause


Wow, that's really bad. Where do you live?

Rich


----------



## boukengreen

Rich said:


> Wow, that's really bad. Where do you live?
> 
> Rich


In the country in north Alabama with a long driveway charter will not come up on


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

boukengreen said:


> In the country in north Alabama with a long driveway charter will not come up on


You may want to contact ATT in case they are about to begin a pilot program in your area

*******************************************
AT&T Launches First Wave of Fixed Wireless Internet Availability to Rural and Underserved Areas
Dallas, Texas, Apr 24, 2017
AT&T1 announced it completed a first wave of Fixed Wireless Internet2 availability for rural and underserved locations in Georgia. This is part of our FCC Connect America Fund commitment to serve over 400,000 locations by the end of 2017 and over 1.1 million locations by 2020.

The work in Georgia is expanding to 17 more states this year. Those additional 17 states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

Our Fixed Wireless Internet delivers a home internet connection with download speeds of at least 10Mbps. The connection comes from a wireless tower to a fixed antenna on customers' homes or businesses. This is a cost-effective way to deliver high-quality, high-speed internet to customers living in rural and underserved areas.


----------



## boukengreen

Gloria_Chavez said:


> You may want to contact ATT in case they are about to begin a pilot program in your area
> 
> *******************************************
> AT&T Launches First Wave of Fixed Wireless Internet Availability to Rural and Underserved Areas
> Dallas, Texas, Apr 24, 2017
> AT&T1 announced it completed a first wave of Fixed Wireless Internet2 availability for rural and underserved locations in Georgia. This is part of our FCC Connect America Fund commitment to serve over 400,000 locations by the end of 2017 and over 1.1 million locations by 2020.
> 
> The work in Georgia is expanding to 17 more states this year. Those additional 17 states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.
> 
> Our Fixed Wireless Internet delivers a home internet connection with download speeds of at least 10Mbps. The connection comes from a wireless tower to a fixed antenna on customers' homes or businesses. This is a cost-effective way to deliver high-quality, high-speed internet to customers living in rural and underserved areas.


Not in a position to do that right now as I'm moving in a couple months but will look into it if charter won't do service my new place of residence I have been keeping up with this


----------



## Rich

boukengreen said:


> In the country in north Alabama with a long driveway charter will not come up on


Thanx, that makes your problem clearer.

Rich


----------



## boukengreen

Rich said:


> Thanx, that makes your problem clearer.
> 
> Rich


Give you a better idea I live in Mo Brooks district which is AL 05


----------



## Newshawk

Rich said:


> I've tried the new Rokus and they don't put out the picture that a FTV2 does, I think. And the FTV2 doesn't put out as good a picture as the ATV4s we have. I really was disappointed by the Rokus. They went back right away, the PQ wasn't nearly as good as my TV apps.
> 
> Rich


I've had my TCL 55US57 4K Roku TV since December and I've been pleased with the PQ and the ease of use with it (with the exception of the Crunchyroll app, which I'm sure is their fault, not Roku's.) Maybe it's just that my eyes are getting bad but I can't see burning an HDMI input to replicate a device I have built-in to my TV.


----------



## phrelin

Rich said:


> I've tried the new Rokus and they don't put out the picture that a FTV2 does, I think. And the FTV2 doesn't put out as good a picture as the ATV4s we have. I really was disappointed by the Rokus. They went back right away, the PQ wasn't nearly as good as my TV apps.
> 
> Rich


I guess there is an advantage to being happy with 720p on my 2003 Pany Plasma all these years. Our Roku 3 puts out a better picture than I had before and even though it is down-converted it is certainly sharper than the broadcast TV standard.


----------



## btedford

I just cancelled my TV service today. I'm now using Sling TV, Amazon, Netflix, HBO. By switching it will save me around $40 per month.


----------



## Rich

boukengreen said:


> Give you a better idea I live in Mo Brooks district which is AL 05


A good friend of mine moved to Alabama a few years ago. He built a big A frame house and made so jealous; he could sit on his back deck and shoot his guns all day long if he wanted to. No neighbors, nothing but quiet...then his wife got bored and back to NJ he came.

That's about the extent of my knowledge about Alabama. He was happy, the wife wasn't...long story short, happy wife (back in NJ), happy life.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Newshawk said:


> I've had my TCL 55US57 4K Roku TV since December and I've been pleased with the PQ and the ease of use with it (with the exception of the Crunchyroll app, which I'm sure is their fault, not Roku's.) Maybe it's just that my eyes are getting bad but I can't see burning an HDMI input to replicate a device I have built-in to my TV.


I've looked at those TV sets. I have no idea if the same problems I had would show up on those sets. I can only talk about the boxes. I've bought many Rokus over the years and returned them, gave them away or threw them out. I just don't like them. Just my opinion, just me.

Rich


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> *I guess there is an advantage to being happy with 720p on my 2003 Pany Plasma* all these years. Our Roku 3 puts out a better picture than I had before and even though it is down-converted it is certainly sharper than the broadcast TV standard.


Yup, you got that right. I never saw the PQ difference between an ATV or an FTV or the smart TV apps and the Rokus until I got the 4K sets. When I recently purchased the Roku's most expensive box I thought the PQ would be superb, the thing was putting out 2160p, how could it be bad? I had been watching _Flaked_ on NF. It's set in Venice, CA and that place is just bursting with color. I watched parts of the show and something bothered me. I switched from the Roku to the TV apps and the colors were...different. The greens (Venice kinda reminded me of Panama, so much green) were subdued on the Roku and jumped out on the TV apps. Switched to the Apple box and saw the same thing. The Roku went back.

I doubt I would have noticed that difference on one of my plasmas. You really have to have one of these sets to appreciate what I mean.

Rich


----------



## Supramom2000

Rich said:


> A good friend of mine moved to Alabama a few years ago. He built a big A frame house and made so jealous; he could sit on his back deck and shoot his guns all day long if he wanted to. No neighbors, nothing but quiet...then his wife got bored and back to NJ he came.
> 
> That's about the extent of my knowledge about Alabama. He was happy, the wife wasn't...long story short, happy wife (back in NJ), happy life.
> 
> Rich


Crazy wife!! I love living in the boonies with no neighbours. We were just doing some shooting last night with no worries about bothering anyone or getting in trouble.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## boukengreen

Supramom2000 said:


> Crazy wife!! I love living in the boonies with no neighbours. We were just doing some shooting last night with no worries about bothering anyone or getting in trouble.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


So it's _you_ I hear every other night shooting their guns around 10pm lol


----------



## billsharpe

I worked for a small company in a small town for two years. Many workers took a personal day off the first day of hunting season. I moved back to the big city with no regrets at all. I'm much happier eight blocks from the beach, even if I don't go swimming any more.


----------



## Rich

Supramom2000 said:


> Crazy wife!! I love living in the boonies with no neighbours. We were just doing some shooting last night with no worries about bothering anyone or getting in trouble.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


I know his wife, nice person. What bothered her was the isolation. It was just the two of them and just going to a supermarket was an ordeal. I know my friend was disappointed, moving to Alabama was a dream come true for him. They lost money on the moves, a lot of money. Now they're in Florida and happy.

Rich


----------



## Newshawk

Cox has imposed a 1 TB data cap on all but their Gigablast tiers. Overages will be charged at $10 for 50 MB. It sucks, but I'm still going to cut my service way back, if not off completely.


----------



## inkahauts

Newshawk said:


> Cox has imposed a 1 TB data cap on all but their Gigablast tiers. Overages will be charged at $10 for 50 MB. It sucks, but I'm still going to cut my service way back, if not off completely.


So after you hit 1tb it's about $10 for what, say 5 hours of shows...


----------



## Newshawk

inkahauts said:


> So after you hit 1tb it's about $10 for what, say 5 hours of shows...


I guess, although I do have a 4K TV. Even at that, it'd take about 350 GB of extra data to match what I'm paying now.


----------



## phrelin

Newshawk said:


> Cox has imposed a 1 TB data cap on all but their Gigablast tiers. Overages will be charged at $10 for 50 MB. It sucks, but I'm still going to cut my service way back, if not off completely.


That's the Comcast/Xfinity policy also. So far we run under 250 GB per month and we stream about 20-25 hours of TV a week.


----------



## inkahauts

Newshawk said:


> I guess, although I do have a 4K TV. Even at that, it'd take about 350 GB of extra data to match what I'm paying now.


Well what's the base rate you pay for the first 1 tb?


----------



## Newshawk

inkahauts said:


> Well what's the base rate you pay for the first 1 tb?


That's the funny thing--it depends on your level. I had Premier and just downgraded to Preferred for a $10 drop in price. Here's the download/upload speeds and prices for each tier:
Starter--5 Mbps/1 Mbps $34.99
Essential--15 Mbps/2 Mbps $49.99
Preferred--100 Mbps/10 Mbps $69.99
Premier--150 Mbps/15 Mbps $79.99
Ultimate--300 Mbps/30 Mbps $99.99


----------



## phrelin

Comcast/Xfinity just keeps adding $5 a year so that now the prices are:









In our area, the only thing to get is "Performance" which right now is
Download Speed
*90.04* Mbps
Upload Speed
*5.88* Mbps


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> Comcast/Xfinity just keeps adding $5 a year so that now the prices are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In our area, the only thing to get is "Performance" which right now is
> Download Speed
> *90.04* Mbps
> Upload Speed
> *5.88* Mbps


Do you have problems uploading anything? Just curious, we have 200 down and 35 up and we have no problems uploading anything. I was "assured" by Optimum folks that 35 up was plenty, that's always bothered me.

Rich


----------



## phrelin

Rich said:


> Do you have problems uploading anything? Just curious, we have 200 down and 35 up and we have no problems uploading anything. I was "assured" by Optimum folks that 35 up was plenty, that's always bothered me.
> 
> Rich


I maintain several websites and I have no problem uploading except when I decide to backup a bunch of data in a huge zip file on a website which has no limits. Even then, the only problem is it takes awhile, a long while


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> I maintain several websites and I have no problem uploading except when I decide to backup a bunch of data in a huge zip file on a website which has no limits. Even then, the only problem is it takes awhile, a long while


Interesting, thanx. I guess Optimum was right.

Rich


----------



## phrelin

And so I had to resubscribe to my locals on Dish.

This past week's wildfire situation (see the thread) started with no internet which also meant no access to streaming local channel news from early Monday morning until late Wednesday afternoon. And I couldn't turn the locals on until Tuesday night when we got cell phone service back.

Not that I'm complaining. Just reporting what I learn in my year of the "cord switch."


----------



## Nick

I hear ya, Phrelin... desperate times call for desparate measures!


----------



## Newshawk

I just got a notice from DirecTV Now that they added my CBS affiliate to the lineup. I'm watching KOTV-6 now and it looks good. I now have all four of the major OTA networks. The only channel I wish I had from D*Now is the local CW affiliate as it carries the final hour of the morning news from KOTV.


----------

