Away from Pay TV

[bUU]

I'm a pretty technical person, but still have concluded that a DVR is far enough superior in user experience to recording to a computer, and far enough superior to streaming, to be worth the cost of both the service to feed the DVR and the DVR itself (though I purchase my own DVR and use CableCARDs instead of renting a DVR - it pays for itself in four years).

 

[jollystomper]

I'm also in the "95% of the stuff I watch is sports" so I'm stuck with cable for a while. I suspect that if a "sports only" package was ever offered on Pay TV it would be at a higher cost than regular cable service.

 

[RunningBum]

I get what people mean about how a la carte would probably be more expensive than packages, especially for those of us who watch sports. But someone had a good comment about this when I googled the topic. Music used to be like this. You had to buy an entire album or CD to get the 1 or 2 songs you like on many albums. Now you can pay for and download just the songs you want, and you can almost always buy at least half the album individually for less than the entire album package.

So why did this happen? Did the demand for music a la carte make it happen, or was it technology and piracy, where Napster or just borrowing a friend's CD to rip an mp3 or two cut into album sales? Finally the music people realized that selling individual songs was better than selling nothing at all.

Will the same thing happen with TV? There are a lot of free streaming sites, but they can be unreliable, plus they are illegal. It's tough to enforce though, and the providers and networks have to focus on not letting people advertise on public forums. I'm on a couple of sports forums where the mods delete any posts advertising free streaming because they have apparently been threatened by companies like ESPN and Cox. Eventually though, I see things changing, and even though ESPN may find only 25% or whatever the number of current subscribers will pay for the sports package, they will also get new subscribers who would pay a reasonable price for just sports.

If not, while I love watching sports, at some point I just won't pay. They can't keep raising the price on a decreasing number of watchers. Eventually they need to stop paying exorbitant prices for the rights to broadcast games, and in turn teams will stop paying nine figure multiyear contracts to players.

 

[GalaxyBoy]

... 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.

I thought that in order to use this service you also had to be a cable or satellite subscriber already receiving the local stations that way? So no free lunch.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Calico]

I thought that in order to use this service you also had to be a cable or satellite subscriber already receiving the local stations that way? So no free lunch.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is the case where I live. Unless you already get the channel through your cable/satellite provider, you cannot watch the live stream via the apps.

 

[Arifriekinel]

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...

I'm very glad not to have been jilted by Comcast as of yet. Also very glad I carry no interest in sports whatsoever! I don't know who else I'd turn to.

 

[aja8888]

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...

Not only are they unwatchable, they change players as frequently as most people change underwear. I can go to a local pub to watch them, but even the pub doesn't care about putting the game up: they will put on the Texans or the Yankees if available.

Our company has season tickets (reserved boxes behind home plate) for Astro's home games and we can't even give the tickets away, let alone take clients to the games.

 

[mysticsurf]

I live outside Boston and subscribed / installed Aereo ( http://aereo.com/i/yTV11F ) this past weekend and it works great. ~30 of the over the air channels with DVR capability for $8 a month. This combined with with Netflix and Amazon Prime gives me more than I need. Will be cutting Comcast next month. Unfortunately I still having to buy Internet from them but will still save ~$35 a month. Right now Aereo is only in NYC and Boston but is scheduled to roll out to a bunch more cities between now and end of year.

 

[Dawg52]

I dropped Comcast in January and went with the free channels and Netflix. I did fine with that combo for the most part, but I wasn't totally cut off from cable. I spent a lot of time at my mom's house looking after her so I watched a few of my favorite cable shows there. Plus I could catch a game not offered on free TV there.

Now that my mom is gone, I have been busy working on 2 houses getting them ready to sell. So I am back using Comcast for now and dropped Netflix. Not sure I could ever totally get away from cable due to sports I like to watch. But will probably sign up for Netflix again when I have more free time. So much for saving money.

 

[imoldernu]

I thought that in order to use this service you also had to be a cable or satellite subscriber already receiving the local stations that way? So no free lunch.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The article is now available on the TRIBUNE here:

Local TV is going mobile with 24/7 streaming - Chicago Tribune

While streaming video has been around for years, ABC-7 is the first Chicago TV station to offer its full programming schedule — network and local — live on mobile devices. ABC, which launched the effort in May in New York and Philadelphia, plans to stream all eight of its owned-and-operated stations by fall. Affiliated stations are also coming online, with Hearst Television bringing Watch ABC to 13 markets in the coming months.

"We have this technology, we have this approach and it doesn't hurt to put it out there and test it and show people what the possible future of television will look like," said Albert Cheng, executive vice president and chief product officer of digital media at Disney/ABC Television Group.

You decide... looked to me as if it will be available to all.
..............................................................................................
I mentioned Pegleg as a source for UTube movies. It takes a while to load, but the listing covers more than 800 movies. As far as I can see, most seem to be legal, though some of the movies were loaded from other countries, like Italy, and while the sound is in English, there are Italian subtitles.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

I need to know, is all this part of the LBYM syndrome? Although I would just as soon not have a big cable bill, I look at it as our entertainment. We don't go to movies or the like so our TV's are our source of entertainment. I like sports and have my man cave. Wife has the big screen setup in the great room. Total of five TV's in the house and two are on all the time. She also has the DVR on her setup so we don't miss much. Her smart TV has the Netflix and Amazon built in which makes all that so much easier. There are two major cable boxes plus three digital adapters.

We have Verizon FIOS with 35/35 internet and the bill also includes our home phone. All that for about $180/month or $2160/year. Overall I think this is a reasonable entertainment expense.

 

[imoldernu]

I need to know, is all this part of the LBYM syndrome? Although I would just as soon not have a big cable bill, I look at it as our entertainment. We don't go to movies or the like so our TV's are our source of entertainment. I like sports and have my man cave. Wife has the big screen setup in the great room. Total of five TV's in the house and two are on all the time. She also has the DVR on her setup so we don't miss much. Her smart TV has the Netflix and Amazon built in which makes all that so much easier. There are two major cable boxes plus three digital adapters.

We have Verizon FIOS with 35/35 internet and the bill also includes our home phone. All that for about $180/month or $2160/year. Overall I think this is a reasonable entertainment expense.

Ya think it's our age Johnnie? I could have written that, 'cuz it's almost exactly what we do. (We haven't been to a movie theater since Star Wars and All the President's Men). It's more the challenge of finding the best deal, and beating the guys (in our case Comcast) who overcharge because of their monopoly. Getting the most for the least is a mantra in our home.

 

[BLS53]

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.

The difference is that the NFL primarily plays on Sunday afternoon, and each team only plays once a week. It's a big money maker for the OTA networks.

MLB, the NBA and NHL, play weeknights. And they play 80 to 162 games a season. The viewership for all those games isn't strong enough to make it on an OTA network primetime viewing schedule. What few independent OTA stations there are left, don't have the money for the rights fees. I think these leagues will be on cable sports channels for the foreseeable future.

I don't see the NFL leaving CBS and FOX. I believe the current contract runs through 2023. So even if they did go all cable, it won't be for awhile.

 

[Mulligan]

Ya think it's our age Johnnie? I could have written that, 'cuz it's almost exactly what we do. (We haven't been to a movie theater since Star Wars and All the President's Men). It's more the challenge of finding the best deal, and beating the guys (in our case Comcast) who overcharge because of their monopoly. Getting the most for the least is a mantra in our home.

I agree with you and Johnnie, though I don't have the tv on as much, but when I do, I value the shows I watch. Break it down over the time allotment and I still think its a good entertainment value. What I don't like is when someone else is getting the same product for a cheaper rate than I do. That is why I feel good about myself when I call and jaw down their price they charge me. The price reduction is immaterial to my budget, but important to my budgeting ego.

 

[BLS53]

I get what people mean about how a la carte would probably be more expensive than packages, especially for those of us who watch sports. But someone had a good comment about this when I googled the topic. Music used to be like this. You had to buy an entire album or CD to get the 1 or 2 songs you like on many albums. Now you can pay for and download just the songs you want, and you can almost always buy at least half the album individually for less than the entire album package.

So why did this happen? Did the demand for music a la carte make it happen, or was it technology and piracy, where Napster or just borrowing a friend's CD to rip an mp3 or two cut into album sales? Finally the music people realized that selling individual songs was better than selling nothing at all.

Will the same thing happen with TV? There are a lot of free streaming sites, but they can be unreliable, plus they are illegal. It's tough to enforce though, and the providers and networks have to focus on not letting people advertise on public forums. I'm on a couple of sports forums where the mods delete any posts advertising free streaming because they have apparently been threatened by companies like ESPN and Cox. Eventually though, I see things changing, and even though ESPN may find only 25% or whatever the number of current subscribers will pay for the sports package, they will also get new subscribers who would pay a reasonable price for just sports.

If not, while I love watching sports, at some point I just won't pay. They can't keep raising the price on a decreasing number of watchers. Eventually they need to stop paying exorbitant prices for the rights to broadcast games, and in turn teams will stop paying nine figure multiyear contracts to players.

Considering all the strikes, lockouts, and off field antics, that fans have endured, they keep paying up to see the games. I think people are so passionate about their teams, they'll pay whatever's necessary to see the games. The economic downturn sure doesn't appear to have affected attendance or TV viewing any.

 

[bUU]

But someone had a good comment about this when I googled the topic. Music used to be like this.

And that is one reason why video probably won't be: Video has seen what happens when an industry (the music industry) dismisses digital distribution as a risk, so they will endeavor to not make the same mistake.

You had to buy an entire album or CD to get the 1 or 2 songs you like on many albums. Now you can pay for and download just the songs you want, and you can almost always buy at least half the album individually for less than the entire album package.

That model already exists and will continue to exist, for video. Just go to Amazon.com, and you can already purchase individual episodes of television series, or individual television series - far more "a la carte" than one network. That's the means by which a la carte is to be offered for video.

Will the same thing happen with TV? There are a lot of free streaming sites, but they can be unreliable, plus they are illegal.

And again, the industry had better be continually vigorous in their prosecution of any websites or service providers that allow such systems to exist or in any way foster them. They know what happens if they're lazy. And they have far more at stake than the music industry. A single episode of Games of Thrones is rumored to cost $6M. With that kind of money, you could probably record dozens upon dozens of albums of music - literally days of music.

I think we've already seen what happens when video producers lose some of the ability to monetize their work: Look how much of broadcast television today is reality teevee.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

I agree with you and Johnnie, though I don't have the tv on as much, but when I do, I value the shows I watch. Break it down over the time allotment and I still think its a good entertainment value. What I don't like is when someone else is getting the same product for a cheaper rate than I do. That is why I feel good about myself when I call and jaw down their price they charge me. The price reduction is immaterial to my budget, but important to my budgeting ego.

I agree. I watch the Verizon bill like a hawk and one reason I still receive paper billing. I don't trust them. I think Verizon delivers the best product for the money but their billing is suspect. Many times in the past when I have called to order some change in our programming, I have been "slammed" and got billed for something extra, like bumping up the internet speed. Right now I'm getting a $10/month discount for being a valued customer, set to expire the end of July. Now I've got to go to work and get that discount continued or some other discount to maintain my $180/mo goal. That's my game.

 

[Badger]

We have an antennae and use Netflix with 3 mail videos and streaming. On occasion we will watch some programs free on computer. For first run movies we go to the early saver show or senior day about every other week. There is always something to watch that we enjoy at any time we want. Since neither of us are interested in watching sports on TV other than tennis we don't need cable or satellite. Been there - Done that. We won't pay for what is mostly informercials, evangelical preaching, and foreign language channels. We got tired of paying high prices for the 2-3 channels that we actually watched long ago. Our total TV and first run movie entertainment cost is about $500/year ($42/month).

Cheers!

 

[GalaxyBoy]

You decide... looked to me as if it will be available to all.

Yeah, it looks like you have to be a cable or satellite subscriber to get the "free" stream on your computer, iPad, etc.

Watch ABC anytime, anywhere in the Chicago area! Live streaming on mobile devices | abc7chicago.com

-- just as long as you're in the viewing area and you verify your participating TV provider. In Chicago, this special new benefit is brought to you by Comcast, AT & T Uverse and Charter Communications at no additional cost.

WATCH ABC Frequently Asked Questions | abc7chicago.com

The WATCH ABC Live Stream is a special new benefit brought to you by ABC7 and participating TV Providers at no additional cost. In select U.S. cities, you can now watch the Live Stream of ABC7. You must be located within each available station's local viewing area and must verify your participating TV Provider account for access to the WATCH ABC Live Stream.

 

[Mulligan]

I agree. I watch the Verizon bill like a hawk and one reason I still receive paper billing. I don't trust them. I think Verizon delivers the best product for the money but their billing is suspect. Many times in the past when I have called to order some change in our programming, I have been "slammed" and got billed for something extra, like bumping up the internet speed. Right now I'm getting a $10/month discount for being a valued customer, set to expire the end of July. Now I've got to go to work and get that discount continued or some other discount to maintain my $180/mo goal. That's my game.

As you know those phone companies/cable have more variations in prices on the same product than a dog has fleas. When I did my yearly call reduction last week at AT&T
they were actually pragmatic with me. The first lady said she couldn't reduce my price, and the only way I could get the new person discount was to discount for 3 or 4 days then sign up again. She transferred me to cancellation department. I then told rep, let's not go through the cancellation game and just take $10 off and we can be done with it. He did and that was that. Except, I got the new billing notice a few days later. Here is where it gets odd. I was paying $46, so was expecting $36. Well the billing statement informed me I would pay $31 for 12 months then it would return to the STANDARD rate of $41. So $41 is the standard, well why the hell is MY standard $46? Last year when I called it was $43, I called got it to $33, then the 12 months was up and it went to $46 ($3 price increase). Now I am not complaining as I got more discounted than I asked for, but it just reinforces how you can get screwed. These companies have a perverse attitude toward customer loyalty. The more loyal you are to them, the more they try to screw you over.

 

[aja8888]

As you know those phone companies/cable have more variations in prices on the same product than a dog has fleas. When I did my yearly call reduction last week at AT&T
they were actually pragmatic with me. The first lady said she couldn't reduce my price, and the only way I could get the new person discount was to discount for 3 or 4 days then sign up again. She transferred me to cancellation department. I then told rep, let's not go through the cancellation game and just take $10 off and we can be done with it. He did and that was that. Except, I got the new billing notice a few days later. Here is where it gets odd. I was paying $46, so was expecting $36. Well the billing statement informed me I would pay $31 for 12 months then it would return to the STANDARD rate of $41. So $41 is the standard, well why the hell is MY standard $46? Last year when I called it was $43, I called got it to $33, then the 12 months was up and it went to $46 ($3 price increase). Now I am not complaining as I got more discounted than I asked for, but it just reinforces how you can get screwed. These companies have a perverse attitude toward customer loyalty. The more loyal you are to them, the more they try to screw you over.

It's my feeling that these cable/telecom companies have no respect for customers. I have fought with Comcast and AT&T for as long as they have had offerings. I am on round two with AT&T after fighting a losing battle for two years with Comcast to have my bill reduced without having to "sign on" for 24 more months. This was the end of round two with them. Only when I was carrying the set top boxes back to the Comcast store and throwing them on the counter did they say they could do me a better (fair?) deal. Too late.

So we are back with Uverse at 1/2 the cost of Comcast. This time I refused the installation unless a tech changed all the cable ends on our 30 year old cable and ran a packet loss check to verify signal quality at each termination. They obliged.

My daughter has Comcast at her house for over a year now and slowly her bill has doubled without any change in service (expired specials). Unfortunately, Uverse or any other provider is not available where she lives. So we are kind of stuck there.

 

[Mulligan]

It's my feeling that these cable/telecom companies have no respect for customers. I have fought with Comcast and AT&T for as long as they have had offerings. I am on round two with AT&T after fighting a losing battle for two years with Comcast to have my bill reduced without having to "sign on" for 24 more months. This was the end of round two with them. Only when I was carrying the set top boxes back to the Comcast store and throwing them on the counter did they say they could do me a better (fair?) deal. Too late.

So we are back with Uverse at 1/2 the cost of Comcast. This time I refused the installation unless a tech changed all the cable ends on our 30 year old cable and ran a packet loss check to verify signal quality at each termination. They obliged.

My daughter has Comcast at her house for over a year now and slowly her bill has doubled without any change in service (expired specials). Unfortunately, Uverse or any other provider is not available where she lives. So we are kind of stuck there.

Maybe this is just my old school superstition, but I am like Johnnie. Although I have several bills on autopay through CC, I refuse to do this with my Internet and cable, along with only 12 month contract extensions after the price break. They know there has to be a check written before they get paid, and can't just collect.

 

[Lsbcal]

I am thinking of going backwards and using fewer TV services, not more.

I am thinking of taking back the DVR I recently got from Cox Cable, because I never use it.

I know you are technically savy so that's not an issue. We rarely watch commercial TV but do watch Public Broadcast TV. I always record these to time shift using our DVR. It's very convenient.

For news I record only today's. Then for the PBS News Hour I'll scan it for interesting content so don't have to watch a full hour or even the intro commercial. Also do this for BBC America news. Some may object to political bias and I think there is some. I also do full series recordings of Masterpiece Theatre, Mystery, Nove, Secrets of the Dead, Nature, etc.

Many nights we are reading our books. Occasionally like last night I need to just keep my eyes open until bedtime (don't want to go to sleep at 7:30PM) so we agree to watch one of those DVR recordings.

Occasionally we even check out the Amazon Prime freebies. Not much we would like but maybe 1 or 2. Netflix streaming is our son's favorite so we piggyback on his account -- I don't feel guilty about this as we paid for his account for a few years and have a paid Netflix DVD account ourselves for the oldies.

 

[aja8888]

Maybe this is just my old school superstition, but I am like Johnnie. Although I have several bills on autopay through CC, I refuse to do this with my Internet and cable, along with only 12 month contract extensions after the price break. They know there has to be a check written before they get paid, and can't just collect.

I also get paper bills for all subscribed services and so does my daughter. Those include cable providers and all cell phones. I though deregulation was supposed to lower prices for everyone?

 

[ziggy29]

I though deregulation was supposed to lower prices for everyone?

Without getting into the politics of it, one thing it did is make it a lot easier for the entities which distribute the content to also be the ones who sell the content. In other words, cable companies now own and sell a lot more of the content, and they can use that content as a "weapon" against competition if the content is compelling enough.

Frankly, I cringed when I started seeing the convergence of those who distribute the content and those who created it, because I saw the potential for monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior.