NFT: I still see major flaws with Cord Cutting

Pick 2 of 3

- Convenience
- Cheaper
- More Channels

As Meatlof said “two out of three ain’t bad”

I wouldn't be able to live without ESPN, NFL Network, NBA TV, MSNBC, TNT, etc.

Two people, 8 TV's in the house but only 3 cable boxes. As a lazy surfer, the thing I'll miss about cable is scrolling through and seeing Terminator or Shawshank on and halfway through and just clicking on it. If I had to search and choose and then commit to watching any of those from the beginning, I wouldn't.

Cutting the cord will probably save me time in the long run. As for the Giants, I'll probably buy Sunday ticket as a standalone since I'm out of market and hate going to the bar to watch.

PS Vue or Hulu or YouTube tv most likely.

In comment 14503136 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

I wouldn't be able to live without ESPN, NFL Network, NBA TV, MSNBC, TNT, etc.

That was me 6/7 years ago. Now? You can take them all for the most part.

So I guess it was always easy for me. I don’t I understand how people can stand wasting hours of time watching commercials through cable networks. YouTube, Netflix and HBO GO are more than enough for my needs. But what about live sports you say? Answer is stream it! Bilasport.net streams flawlessly and you can watch just about any and every sport there is. It’s how I watch baseball and football all season.

If you want some network tv stations then get an HD Antenna as long as you have reception in your area. I live on the side of a mountain in a large Valley region so it’s not an option for me, but I used to have one when I lived in Albany and got like 20+ channels.

has eliminated commercial watching.

Wait until Disney’s steaming service starts up soon. ALL Disney owned properties will be pulled from other sites and will be available only on their service. For MSG and SNY, stream through alternate sights like Reddit.

Thinking you need more.

until they raised their prices. With a lot of shows behind a paywall like CBS, you are going to see a lot more people going back to pirating their content.

I pay $50 a month, but it comes with six accounts, so my wife and I use my account at home, and each of my five children have access to it where they live around the country. Streams great, unlimited DVR. Only drawback for is that it is limited to the devices streaming simultaneously, so if half the family is already using it, the other half has to wait to get on.

I Combined PSVue with a VPN subscription to change my location last year, and next thing you know, I'm watching and DVRing all the NYC locals, which gave me access to love Giants games. Not so sure that's going to work with YouTube TV.

Which gives me everything I could possibly as for for 20 a month
Watched ppv boxing last night for nada
In the process of finally dumping direct tv. Have streamlined it
Will get nfl games thru the box
Maybe buy nfl game pass too

The cable TV model is one of cross subsidization. Everyone pays for all channels, though each person only watches a small subset. You pay for channels you don’t watch. But other subscribers who don’t watch your channels are doing the same on your behalf. So every channel costs less than it otherwise would and every viewer gets a wide variety to choose from.

Because sports is the the most expensive programming there is, the sports fan has gotten the biggest benefit from the cable model. As the cable model erodes, that’s who likely ends up paying the most for their programming in an ala carte world.

ones and PlayStation Vue is easily the best combination of channels and user friendly-ness. The unlimited DVR feature is fantastic as well.

Highly recommend it.

Still feels cheaper than one subscription for $100 a month..

In comment 14503110 TJ said:

Quote:

That doesn't really bother me. The idea of paying for television - most of it truly awful - is so appalling that I pick just a couple tv things I want to have and don't worry about the rest. I live too far out to receive tv on an antenna so we just get pbs, and sling for my wife's movie channel (TCM I think?). As a bonus it also gives me yankee games though I catch those more often on radio while I'm doing other things. During football season months I grit my teeth and pay for another service that has the giants games. But I'm always on the lookout for a way to eliminate that.

How are you getting Yankee games? They dont strean YES

In comment 14503172 Jim in Fairfax said:

Quote:

The cable TV model is one of cross subsidization. Everyone pays for all channels, though each person only watches a small subset. You pay for channels you don’t watch. But other subscribers who don’t watch your channels are doing the same on your behalf. So every channel costs less than it otherwise would and every viewer gets a wide variety to choose from. Because sports is the the most expensive programming there is, the sports fan has gotten the biggest benefit from the cable model. As the cable model erodes, that’s who likely ends up paying the most for their programming in an ala carte world.

The other issue that I have is the sports streaming products are substandard in quality and FPS. That's the only reason I still hold onto DirecTV, for the sunday ticket.

With cable/satellite, you know you are getting 60 fps, at 720p or 1080i. The steaming services are a blackbox in terms of this; you get 'HD' quality but you never know what the actual resolution is. 60 fps is device dependent. Watching MLB on MLB.tv is fine, but fast moving sports like hockey or football has been terrible in my experience.

I'd rather get the hockey and football packages through cable/satellite than an ISP at this point. Regarding 4k, it will be interesting to see who starts broadcasting NFL games in 4k/120 fps first, TV providers or streaming services.

for Fox and CBS NY networks so I get all the Giants games.

But When I stream Amazon Prime shows/movies through my PS4 I sometimes get buffering issues and that would drive me crazy if was my main option.

In comment 14503136 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

I wouldn't be able to live without ESPN, NFL Network, NBA TV, MSNBC, TNT, etc.

You can get all those channels on streaming services. For example, we replaced cable with PS Vue. You get all those channels, local network TV and more with unlimited DVR for $50 a month. And the programming runs in real time on the channels as well as being able to record. I run it through my Playstation since I have it, but you can use a Firestick or whatever you currently use for apps.

The link below has a breakdown of channels offered in the various packages. Looks like they raised the price to $55 on "Core" for new customers, but still cheaper than cable.
Link - ( New Window )

which does have ESPN, as well as a bunch of sports channels I never watch. It's not true cord-cutting, I guess, because we still have a paid TV service, but it's about half the cost of the Spectrum TV service we had. We also have an antenna, but almost never use it. Honestly we should use it more.

I'm going to miss RedZone but cable just got to be too much money for a lot of content I wasn't ever going to watch. I'd have to think seriously about signing up for NFL Sunday Ticket if they ever make it available via streaming.

We are also saving money by no longer renting cable boxes or a Spectrum router. We upgraded to 400mbps Internet service, got a Spectrum a cable modem, declined their router and instead put in a mesh WiFi router (new) and a switch (already had). So instead of paying about $20/month just for Spectrum's gear, we're using our own, which we like better.

It was sort of project, but I'm happy with the result. We almost never have buffering so I'm not feeling the urge to upgrade to Megabit cable Internet, especially since you don't really get fast uploads with it.

Problem now is, there are going to be too many streaming services to subscribe to. Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, Warner, plus CBS All-Access, and the various leagues. Too many things to manage, too many bills.

In comment 14503135 twostepgiants said:

Quote:

Pick 2 of 3 - Convenience - Cheaper - More Channels As Meatlof said “two out of three ain’t bad”

Ha-the old Good/Fast/Cheap conundrum.

use "locast" TV. It will give you local networks for free. It will throw up a nag screen to donate $5 to them, and after about 15 minutes throw up that screen again and boot you from the program. So there are drawbacks.

Only my son uses it here to stream "the 100" on the CW. We don't get that channel. So what we decided was to log into the app a couple minutes prior watch the nag ad, and every time a commercial comes on exit the app and come back in.

He does that and never gets the 15 minute in nag ad that will boot you in the middle of the program. It's a hack for sure, but it works.

Just recently cut cable and trying to figure out the next step. Had no option besides Spectrum in my apartment and they had me up to $195/month. I would say we turn on the tv a few times a week max. I watch literally almost zero television aside from sports so enough was enough.

Of course that’s the big problem. I like watching the Knicks, Premier League, Devils and NFL/NCAA football. So I am trying to come up with the best solution here. The Giants aren’t really an issue as that’s broadcast TV, can solve that with a cheap antennae if needed. Have to sift through the options.

In comment 14503357 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

I'd have to think seriously about signing up for NFL Sunday Ticket if they ever make it available via streaming.

Sunday ticket is available as a streaming, stand-alone service. I've had it for a few years now at least. It has come in handy since the Giants aren't on TV in Los Angeles very often with the Rams and Chargers coming to town. I stream through the Playstation or laptop but I'm sure the app is available on whatever device you use for other streaming services.

It's a bit pricey though. I'm actually considering Game Pass this year and just watching the games on delay since it's significantly cheaper, but we'll see. Don't know if I can handle the wait.

NFL Sunday Ticket Streaming - ( New Window )

modems anymore

The CW has a free app on Roku.

In comment 14503138 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14503136 SFGFNCGiantsFan said: Quote: I wouldn't be able to live without ESPN, NFL Network, NBA TV, MSNBC, TNT, etc. That was me 6/7 years ago. Now? You can take them all for the most part.

This is me. Sports TV and punditry is infuriating. I'd much rather listen to a sports podcast that has long form discussion around teams and topics I'm actually interested in than a 2 minute segment of Stephen A Smith yelling at someone.

They keep raising prices making it all a wash.

Prices went up and they dropped a number of popular channels. The only saving gracing is that AT&T customers can stream data-free from anywhere they please. Once that's done, I'll be switching.

cycling and soccer to the big 4 American sports. Motorcross to Hockey, you name it, I watch it. So I was concerned about live sports. So far my experience has been ok. I had Directv for 23 years. My bill will be cut in half at least. From about 250 a month to 125. I’m concerned a bit about football season but I think I will figure it out by then. Right now I’ve settled on YouTube TV. I had Sling for the free week, but it didn’t offer the big four networks and YouTube TV does. I watched the NASCAR race on YouTube -TV this afternoon and I was a bit dismayed by the lag in the stream. The stream was about 2 laps behind, which is about 35-45 seconds. I was streaming RaceView at the same time and my live tv stream was that far behind the RaceView data. Not good. For live sports that is a significant lag. Not sure what can be done about that, other than to avoid all forms of updates until the game concludes on the stream.

In comment 14503362 cjd2404 said:

Quote:

use "locast" TV. It will give you local networks for free. It will throw up a nag screen to donate $5 to them, and after about 15 minutes throw up that screen again and boot you from the program. So there are drawbacks. Only my son uses it here to stream "the 100" on the CW. We don't get that channel. So what we decided was to log into the app a couple minutes prior watch the nag ad, and every time a commercial comes on exit the app and come back in. He does that and never gets the 15 minute in nag ad that will boot you in the middle of the program. It's a hack for sure, but it works.

Or donate.

In comment 14503379 oghwga said:

Quote:

The CW has a free app on Roku.

We tried that first, apparently this show is not available on the app. At least according to my son

In comment 14503433 RDJR said:

Quote:

In comment 14503362 cjd2404 said: Quote: use "locast" TV. It will give you local networks for free. It will throw up a nag screen to donate $5 to them, and after about 15 minutes throw up that screen again and boot you from the program. So there are drawbacks. Only my son uses it here to stream "the 100" on the CW. We don't get that channel. So what we decided was to log into the app a couple minutes prior watch the nag ad, and every time a commercial comes on exit the app and come back in. He does that and never gets the 15 minute in nag ad that will boot you in the middle of the program. It's a hack for sure, but it works. Or donate.

Multiple folks have informed me donating hasn't changed the behavior of the app throwing you out of a show mid stream to show you the nag ad. If it would free me of that I would donate.

In comment 14503121 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

When we did this, I worried most about the kids, but my kids (and the friends they know) don't watch TV. They watch everything online. They have no concept of network TV at all. It's completely foreign to them. Same with the news. All of the kids seem to know what is going on in the world (domestically and internationally) but no one watches "the news"... they get it from their devices. Different world.

This is my experience. My kids watch some shows on Netfix or Amazon prime and they watch YouTube content. They literally never sit down to just watch "what's on TV". Utterly unlike my experience as a kid.

Seperate from this, it's a bummer that big media companies are going to take what could have been an a la-carte experience, and finding a way to ruin the netflix revolution by introducing competing, isolated streaming services. I hoped we were going to get to the place where you could pay for shows, series or sporting events individually.

First of all, going from a cable/internet bundle to just internet really doesn't save me all that much. Secondly, what saving I would have would be negated by the subscription fees for a bunch of streaming services. Finally, there's too much I can't get via streaming, mainly college sports.

Herky-jerky, prone to interruption and freezing. Beats nothing, but hardly an ideal solution.

If saving money were the priority, there are numerous ways to stream virtually everything on this planet for little to no cost. Cord cutters who privatize cost, yeah they have a ton of options.

Then you have cord cutters who rarely watch TV anymore. Cost isn’t the priority. Convenience etc are their priority. They are shifting they way they consume more than they are prioritizing cost. Many of these people do realize a small cost savings as a by product.

Then there are those who are massive consumers of cable tv. Who generally have VERY large cable bills. But would like to save a couple bucks because the price is exorbitant. The reality is their priority is to have as much choice and consumption as possible, and cable tv packages are probably still their best option. These people tend to be the ones who don’t see the benefit of cord cutting

The #1 reason I pursued this was to cut our TV bill.

And again, we went from spending well over $100 per month to about $20.

But what I also learned in the process was that I was paying for a lot of TV that I simply didn't watch.

sense for me either. Comcast/Xfinity is the only reliable high speed internet available where I live and I need a good connection because I work from home. They give you a deal when you bundle internet and tv. I would probably save $5-10 per month if I cut the cord. It's not worth the hassle IMO. I think it's a mental thing for a lot of people.

In comment 14503765 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

The #1 reason I pursued this was to cut our TV bill. And again, we went from spending well over $100 per month to about $20. But what I also learned in the process was that I was paying for a lot of TV that I simply didn't watch.

Eric, I assume you fall into the same category as most people do (the second). It’s amazing how often people use their tv as just background noise more than actually sitting and watching cable tv.

I still watch more than I should. Specifically, what I meant is that I was paying for a ton of channels that I simply didn't watch. I had DirecTV but was probably only watching 5-6 channels.

Same thing even with the current set-up. We got the HD antenna because we didn't want to be in a situation where we couldn't watch network TV, but the only time I use the antenna is to watch football games.

In comment 14503373 CGiants07 said:

Quote:

modems anymore

Modems no, but routers I think they charge for. I have FiOS. It is the same thing. I only use their router on the off chance I need support because if you use your own, that is the first angle they will take.

In comment 14503765 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

The #1 reason I pursued this was to cut our TV bill. And again, we went from spending well over $100 per month to about $20. But what I also learned in the process was that I was paying for a lot of TV that I simply didn't watch.

But, when you factor in cost of internet, etc. what is your overall net gain for internet/TV after cutting?

In comment 14503440 cjd2404 said:

Quote:

In comment 14503379 oghwga said: Quote: The CW has a free app on Roku. We tried that first, apparently this show is not available on the app. At least according to my son

In comment 14503876 slov72 said:

Quote:

In comment 14503440 cjd2404 said: Quote: In comment 14503379 oghwga said: Quote: The CW has a free app on Roku. We tried that first, apparently this show is not available on the app. At least according to my son

Sorry about that.. The CW will put a show up on its app (like the 100) for a few weeks after it airs. If you do not watch it in that time it is removed. For most of there shows they then show up on Netflix during the next season. I know for a fact that the 100 is on Netflix up through last season and the Flash, Arrow etc. are fully up to date on Netflix.

come to terms and I was missing yankee games. I don't save money over the promotional deals for cable+internet, but it's definitely cheaper than the rates after promotion expires. For me, the benefit is two things:

1) Cable companies and their "cancellation departments" and promotional rates that stop abruptly and result in surprise bills. I don't have to deal with that shit anymore. That has real value for me.

2) Flexibility - There are tons of live TV providers. I have tried them all. They've all got trials and easy cancellation. I can switch providers and be up and running with a new tv provider in minutes. I can increase/decrease my pricing tier easily. I pay for exactly as much live tv as I want. No longer part of the monopoly.

I pay ~ 78 bucks for internet (200+ Mbps service) from comcast (I don't rent the modem or router, I bought those). I have Netflix, Hulu and DirecTVNow. I have all my locals. Thinking about switching to YoutubeTV for the summer and then switching back to DTVNow when the Knicks return (to get MSG).

Nothing. We were still using the internet before we got the TV.

Did we have to upgrade internet speed? Yes, but the weird thing with stupid Cox is that if you contact them every year, they are running some special where often the faster speed is cheaper than the lower one. It sucks, and I hate calling each year, but it ends up saving us a bunch of money too.

Right now, we pay for Roku, Hulu, and an annual Amazon Prime subscription. It comes out to about $20 per month.

Also, I do pay for NFL GamePass, but because of the site, I would have done that anyways. (Plus it's a write-off for me).

In comment 14503765 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

The #1 reason I pursued this was to cut our TV bill. And again, we went from spending well over $100 per month to about $20. But what I also learned in the process was that I was paying for a lot of TV that I simply didn't watch.

Timely thread, I am going to be cord cutting in the near future. I have to decide between YouTube TV or Playstation Vue.
I know you don't get the NFL Network
on YouTube TV, I really don't need it.
Most live games on there, are also on simulcast with another network like CBS for example. I guess this year it will be FOX?
You do get the MLB Network. I am looking to cut costs.
My MBPS will be slower on the internet.

In comment 14503894 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Nothing. We were still using the internet before we got the TV. Did we have to upgrade internet speed? Yes, but the weird thing with stupid Cox is that if you contact them every year, they are running some special where often the faster speed is cheaper than the lower one. It sucks, and I hate calling each year, but it ends up saving us a bunch of money too. Right now, we pay for Roku, Hulu, and an annual Amazon Prime subscription. It comes out to about $20 per month.

Thanks. FOr me, the cost of internet only is not much cheaper than the bundled package. It is a ripoff.

Eventually Verizon jacked our internet only up to $100 per month. When you add in streaming services is crept up to about $140 again. We got a deal with Comcast and are probably paying about $120 for cable and the streaming services we use. We pay for Netflix and Hulu. Xfinity service is actually pretty good right now and the voice remote they have kicks ass.

We only have one box now...but I can stream stuff to other TV's. In the past it was 40-50 bucks a month for the extra TV's. You learn to live without that.

Stream really only works if you can keep the internet access down under about $60/mo. Once it creeps up over that it ends up being a wash for a family.