Away from Pay TV

[ER Eddie]

Anyone who's a gamer can get Netflix, Hulu, and a ton of other streaming services over their console. That's what I do. I watch Netflix for about one-tenth of what I used to pay Comcast. Selection is very good, and there are no commercials (absolutely mandatory for TV watching, imo).

 

[REWahoo]

And if we had decent Internet so I could stream a lot of content that wasn't on OTA, I'd be throwing up a big outdoor antenna pointed at San Antonio and building a media center computer with OTA tuner and DVR software today....

+1

Our internet connection is slower than yours so I'm in the same boat. We tried Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video - not good.

On a more positive note, we get great OTA reception as we are on a hill ~40 miles from the SA stations (the major network transmitters are on the SE side of Calaveras Lake). During construction I wired RG6 cable throughout the house and installed an attic antenna so we could have OTA TV in the bedrooms and avoid paying for satellite boxes wherever we could. One unexpected benefit is the OTA HD picture quality - very nice.

 

[ERD50]

ziggy - check the netflix account settings - you can 'force it' to use a lower bandwidth, which gives a more reliable experience with a marginal internet speed. I did this, and there is far less buffering and pausing, and the picture is still very good, just a step down from the highest (non-HD) level.

The trade-off was worth it for me.

-ERD50

 

[Mulligan]

There's actually something like that available - C-Band. However, if you're just picking and choosing the channels you want, they're generally a lot more expensive than their component cost in a package. The costs are so high, per channel, that the service offerings are pretty-much all gone, but here's a relative recent article (June 2012) that outlines the general case that prevailed when C-Band was more readily available:

Why Won't Comcast Just Sell Me the 16 Channels I want to Watch? | Free By 50

And that's over and above the basic account service fee (which IIRC was about $40 per month). So in the end, such an arrangement would only work out for people who truly only access four or five channels, max. Once you add a sixth or seventh channel, the package deals work out better.

So, with regard to cable television packages, as the article indicates:

The more I have read about it, the more I have came to your conclusion that ala cart will not bring great savings. Especially to the sports channels that I watch. Many people take shots at the cable/satellite company, but the channels themselves bring about the vicious cycle. Take for example Fox Sports network. They refuse to let a company broadcast their channels because they will not pay the increased price they want. The consumers in turn complain not to the broadcast company, but the the cable provider. Then facing mounting pressures from complaints and cancelation, the provider then agrees to contract and then passes on the cost. Then the consumer complains about the increased cost of service. At least I get $20 off every year, by calling and going the "threaten to cancel routine". It has become an annual July event, along with the separate Internet contract.

 

[imoldernu]

When I opened the Chicago Tribune this morning, the Business section featured a story about Chicago Channel 7 (Disney/ABC Television) announcing a rollout this month, to "WATCH ABC" in Chicago... an app that enables 24/7 live streaming of network owned WLS -Ch. 7 on a tablet, smart-phone or other mobile device.
This will be the first time a major TV station will offer its full 24/7 programming schedule in Chicago. ABC, in Philadelphia and New York began doing this in May.

The article (not available yet online) is extensive and pointed up the fact that Tablet ownership for adults over 18 has gone from 3% in 2010, to 34% in 2013.

If ABC does it now, will CBS, NBC and FOX be far behind?

 

[pb4uski]

Streaming by local OTA stations would be the last piece of the puzzle for me to cut the cord. We have good internet service but poor OTA reception as there is a mountain right behind us between us and the OTA transmitters. Folks on the other side of the lake (~1 mile away) get good OTA reception.

 

[ziggy29]

Streaming by local OTA stations would be the last piece of the puzzle for me to cut the cord. We have good internet service but poor OTA reception as there is a mountain right behind us between us and the OTA transmitters. Folks on the other side of the lake (~1 mile away) get good OTA reception.

Funny how things work -- we're in the opposite situation. We could (if we were inclined) put up a good outdoor antenna here and get great reception into San Antonio (so I'm told from those who have done it) -- but as long as our Internet connection is too lousy to enable reliable streaming content, there's no point since we'd need to keep the dish anyway.

 

[MikeWillRetire]

Thanks Imoldernu for the tip on getting youtube on the Roku.

 

[pb4uski]

Funny how things work -- we're in the opposite situation. We could (if we were inclined) put up a good outdoor antenna here and get great reception into San Antonio (so I'm told from those who have done it) -- but as long as our Internet connection is too lousy to enable reliable streaming content, there's no point since we'd need to keep the dish anyway.

But wouldn't satellite internet only be much less than satellite internet + tv?

If i have good OTA then I think I could get satellite internet for ~$50-60/month (if i didn't have access to DSL and/or cable internet).

 

[aja8888]

ziggy - check the netflix account settings - you can 'force it' to use a lower bandwidth, which gives a more reliable experience with a marginal internet speed. I did this, and there is far less buffering and pausing, and the picture is still very good, just a step down from the highest (non-HD) level.

The trade-off was worth it for me.

-ERD50

Just curious, but what download speed does this lowering represent? I may switch to DSL by AT&T (3.0 MB/S max) and dump Comcast cable (no Uverse near me).

 

[ziggy29]

But wouldn't satellite internet only be much less than satellite internet + tv?

Satellite internet is quite expensive and it has ridiculously low bandwidth limits, especially for streaming video. It's really a last resort for people who have no other realistic options. If you used satellite internet to stream 2-3 hours of HD content in a day, you'd either (a) hit your monthly cap after a week or less and it would be unwatchable for the rest of the month or (b) you would incur "extra bandwidth" charges of several hundred dollars a month. So in that case, you'd be better off with "baseline" satellite internet with lower usage (little or no streaming video) and use satellite TV for that.

In any event, we have DSL here (sort of), piggybacking by repeaters from the church office next door.

 

[youbet]

The unsolved mystery here in Chicagoland is how to watch pro sports on TV without cable or satellite. I'm not that big a sports fan, but not having access to most Cubs, Sox, Bulls, Bears or Hawks games when I do feel like watching would be a bummer. Most games are on cable channels. Few are available OTA.

I do have easy access to OTA since I can see the Chicago skyline from my rooftop. But the quality of OTA programming seems to be slipping. When the switch from analog to digital first took place, a number of stations got on the air with temporary, low power signals with promises to improve later. But the improvements don't seem to be taking place. Perhaps they perceive so little viewership that buying new high power transmitters and continuing to lease very expensive skyscraper located antenna space just isn't worth it. Most of their viewers see them via cable or satellite.

The non-network OTA stations seem to be suffering from content acquisition too. We have several independent stations broadcasting vintage sitcoms OTA, but watching old episodes of Lucy and Desi gets old eventually.

I do get three public stations OTA.

But sports continues to be the problem. Little access to the Chicago teams either OTA or streaming. I would drop Comcast if I could get the local sports majors from another less expensive source. OTA and free streaming would do it for the rest of my TV watching.

Any ideas?

 

[Mulligan]

The unsolved mystery here in Chicagoland is how to watch pro sports on TV without cable or satellite. I'm not that big a sports fan, but not having access to most Cubs, Sox, Bulls, Bears or Hawks games when I do feel like watching would be a bummer. Most games are on cable channels. Few are available OTA.

I do have easy access to OTA since I can see the Chicago skyline from my rooftop. But the quality of OTA programming seems to be slipping. When the switch from analog to digital first took place, a number of stations got on the air with temporary, low power signals with promises to improve later. But the improvements don't seem to be taking place. Perhaps they perceive so little viewership that buying new high power transmitters and continuing to lease very expensive skyscraper located antenna space just isn't worth it. Most of their viewers see them via cable or satellite.

The non-network OTA stations seem to be suffering from content acquisition too. We have several independent stations broadcasting old sitcoms OTA, but watching old episodes of Lucy and Desi gets old eventually.

I do get three public stations OTA.

But sports continues to be the problem. Little access to the Chicago teams either OTA or streaming.

Any ideas?

Sorry but you are gonna have to pony up, and continue to pay for cable. You can get out of market packages through NBA, MLB and NHL (NFL only on Direct) on internet but not the locals. There are always websites that are constantly up and down that pirate this stuff for free, but many of low quality though and constantly getting blocked.

 

[Mulligan]

Just curious, but what download speed does this lowering represent? I may switch to DSL by AT&T (3.0 MB/S max) and dump Comcast cable (no Uverse near me).

Aja, I have the 3.0 through AT&T and it worked ok on Netflix on my iPad, but it would hang up occasionally. I personally would not cut my cable to use that speed as my sole
viewing platform on a tv though.

 

[SumDay]

I too am a rabid sports junkie, and must watch my favorite college team at all costs, even though we also have season tickets. But we don't make it to away games, so we'll keep the cable for a while.

For those of you interested in the A La Carte cable, this is a very interesting analysis from a sports reporter I follow:

Is A La Carte Cable Good or Bad for Sports Fans? : Outkick The Coverage

I think the next 5 years will bring big changes in the options available to us all. Competition is a good thing.

 

[ziggy29]

But sports continues to be the problem. Little access to the Chicago teams either OTA or streaming. I would drop Comcast if I could get the local sports majors from another less expensive source. OTA and free streaming would do it for the rest of my TV watching.

Yeah, almost all the sports have migrated off the free OTA stations and on to cable. In terms of watching a few of these games (not that many) in a month, depending on your tolerance for that sort of thing and how frequent/infrequent it may be, occasionally heading to a sports bar in the area to watch a game when you are in the mood might actually be more cost effective than paying $50-100 a month for a cable package just to occasionally watch sports on TV.

I do suspect that more sports teams will start offering per-game streaming in the next few years.

 

[youbet]

Sorry but you are gonna have to pony up, and continue to pay for cable. You can get out of market packages through NBA, MLB and NHL (NFL only on Direct) on internet but not the locals. There are always websites that are constantly up and down that pirate this stuff for free, but many of low quality though and constantly getting blocked.

So far, that's my conclusion too.

Bidding sports out of the hands of the networks, which would likely make the games available OTA as they were years ago, was a very smart move on the part of the major cable providers. At least it keeps me paying my bill. The minimum package to have access to local major sports costs me about $70/mo and I just hate paying that bill. We do watch some other cable-only programming from time to time. But it's sports that keeps me hooked.

 

[ziggy29]

Bidding sports out of the hands of the networks, which would likely make the games available OTA as they were years ago, was a very smart move on the part of the major cable providers. At least it keeps me paying my bill. The minimum package to have access to local major sports costs me about $70/mo and I just hate paying that bill. We do watch some other cable-only programming from time to time. But it's sports that keeps me hooked.

Yes, Comcast (AKA Comcrap) is doing this aggressively. They are trying to get a strangehold on RSNs in a few markets and then seeking unreasonable terms for other competing cable and satellite providers so they can be the only game in town for offering certain sports teams. I know Houston in fighting that battle with CSN Houston, and Philly has had some issues as well. The next effect is that almost no one other than Comcast carries CSN Houston. Which right now is just as well because the Astros are pretty unwatchable...

 

[youbet]

Yeah, almost all the sports have migrated off the free OTA stations and on to cable. In terms of watching a few of these games (not that many) in a month, depending on your tolerance for that sort of thing and how frequent/infrequent it may be, occasionally heading to a sports bar in the area to watch a game when you are in the mood might actually be more cost effective than paying $50-100 a month for a cable package just to occasionally watch sports on TV.

I do suspect that more sports teams will start offering per-game streaming in the next few years.

Well....... If I go over to the Tilted Kilt to watch a Bears game on a Sunday afternoon, it's generally a $25 - $30 trip. Say 3 pints, a snack, a tip....... and there ya go. Of course I suppose there is some value associated with the micro-kilts worn by the healthy young ladies doing the serving.

With baseball and basketball, I'm a casual watcher for most games. I'm almost always doing something else at the same time. I might have the volume down and be listening to music and reading the paper or doing FireCalc runs. If things get exciting, and I notice, I pay more attention.

Hockey has been a lot of fun with the Blackhawks the past few years and although I walk away from the set from time to time, generally pay attention to the games. But if I'm not around for games, it's no big deal unless it's playoffs.

I do watch most Bear games (despite their frustrating play lately) and make an effort to either be in front of the set at game time or have the recorder set.

Anyway....... paying whatever it takes to win the sports contracts seems to have been a smart move on the part of the cable companies. It's keeping their hand in my wallet and I'm hardly a fanatic.

Maybe the hook is that sports is talked about everywhere. You're in the car listening to the radio and the news comes on. Sure enough, they cover the outcomes of the recent games. Watching the news on TV or reading the paper......... ? Lots of sports coverage. Even my home page on the computer blasts me with sports scores and highlights. To have all that going on and not be able to tune into a game you want to watch would bug me.

 

[ziggy29]

Well....... If I go over to the Tilted Kilt to watch a Bears game on a Sunday afternoon, it's generally a $25 - $30 trip. Say 3 pints, a snack, a tip....... and there ya go.

Of course, except for the Monday Night games on ESPN, the NFL is still on free TV (unless you want to watch out of market games, but in Chicagoland I assume the Bears are always on as long as they sell out at home). The day the NFL goes to ESPN or some other premium cable entity is the day you see a real cataclysmic shift.

 

[youbet]

Of course, except for the Monday Night games on ESPN, the NFL is still on free TV (unless you want to watch out of market games, but in Chicagoland I assume the Bears are always on as long as they sell out at home). The day the NFL goes to ESPN or some other premium cable entity is the day you see a real cataclysmic shift.

Yep, the Bears are still on free TV for most games. I think the cable companies, esp Comcrap, have been able to meet their objective without incurring the expense of winning the NFL broadcast contracts.

 

[pb4uski]

....In any event, we have DSL here (sort of), piggybacking by repeaters from the church office next door.

Interesting. We have DSL as well and video seems to work fine (we use Amazon Prime right now and occasionally Hulu)- it buffers every once in a while, but it would be fine for our needs so if we could get our locals OTA or via the internet then I could cut the cord.

 

[aja8888]

Aja, I have the 3.0 through AT&T and it worked ok on Netflix on my iPad, but it would hang up occasionally. I personally would not cut my cable to use that speed as my sole
viewing platform on a tv though.

Thanks, I'll stick with what we have until Uverse comes in (I hope).

 

[Larro Darro]

While I view only a few programs, they are scattered all over the dial [I'm showing my age]. As a FSU hoops fan, I have to search several channels to find my beloved Noles. We do have Dish, and have always liked the service. My DW is a TV junkie and keeps the DVR full of stuff you couldn't pay me to watch. If the CIA really want to torture those folks down in GITMO, just tune in to the Lifetime Movie Channel. If they know anything, they will be talking.

I do have the DVR set to record all new Doctor Who episodes, F1 racing, The Daily Show With John Stewart, and the Mclaughlin Group. Most everything else I can do without. Until basketball season.

 

[calmloki]

We use Twonky (free) on an Iphone or Android to stream content from those devices to tv, including movies or Youtube content. Plenty of Iphone & Android apps to turn your handheld device into a WiFi remote that often works better than the infrared remote.

On the Roku 3 the gal likes News Look and NBC News, and in Plex if you find and open PlexGrid you can find Brian Williams and Nightline and a massive amount of other full length, no advertising content.