Update on Cord Cutting (Cable TV) 2017 - 2020

[RonBoyd]

Well - that's easily solved because you don't have to subscribe to all stream/content providers at all times. You can rotate between streams with different content.

And BTW - that entire article was one paragraph half of which you quoted?!?!?

That's been my solution, also.

Anyway, the article is the video, actually. The single paragraph is a "lead-in."

 

[Chuckanut]

Because their subscriber losses aren't big enough yet.

Plus channels are increasing their costs all the time..

I had a friend who had a window washing business years ago and he got a lot of business from people in the Entertainment Industry. Trust me when I tell you they are not just rich, they are Extremely Rich. That money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere eventually works its way down to the pocket books of the consumers. Apparently, there are enough people who are willing to pay $140+ for Internet and Entertainment so the rich are getting richer. It's a choice.

I keep my TV entertainment budget to about $25 a month as explained earlier. OK, maybe I should add in another $5 for my share of the library DVD's I check out. Now it's $30 a month.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I had a friend who had a window washing business years ago and he got a lot of business from people in the Entertainment Industry. Trust me when I tell you they are not just rich, they are Extremely Rich. That money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere eventually works its way down to the pocket books of the consumers. Apparently, there are enough people who are willing to pay $140+ for Internet and Entertainment so the rich are getting richer. It's a choice.

I keep my TV entertainment budget to about $25 a month as explained earlier. OK, maybe I should add in another $5 for my share of the library DVD's I check out. Now it's $30 a month.

They don't even have to be "rich, rich". My in-laws do well for themselves and would be considered wealthy by most, and do not care about cable costs. They have satellite TV as well as cable TV at their main house *and* at the vacation house they use less than 10 days out of the year. As far as I can tell, they have the "Cadillac" line up of channels on both satellite and cable. I asked why once and got some odd answer (I don't really remember the reason) but they just do not care how much it costs.

 

[Chuckanut]

They don't even have to be "rich, rich". My in-laws do well for themselves and would be considered wealthy by most, and do not care about cable costs. They have satellite TV as well as cable TV at their main house *and* at the vacation house they use less than 10 days out of the year. As far as I can tell, they have the "Cadillac" line up of channels on both satellite and cable. I asked why once and got some odd answer (I don't really remember the reason) but they just do not care how much it costs.

I wasn't referring to the customers of cable providers but the entertainers themselves who receive amazing salaries. One woman who had a hit show got almost $250,000 per episode. Then there are the 'lesser' actors, the producers, directors, etc. who are all also well paid. I'm not saying they should not get that if they can. Just that the ultimate consumer ends up paying their part of such a huge salary. The only way I know not to contribute is to watch less and in the cheapest legal way possible. After all, Money talks, but perhaps not as loud as the lack of money.

 

[Rustic23]

I don't begrudge the actor/actress, ball player, or company president that got rich on their talent. I am retired today because they did.

 

[Cobra9777]

Locast

Locast offers free broadcast TV streams in 7 major US cities. It's been mentioned previously in this thread, though not much discussion. I'm a little surprised that no one has challenged the legality of the service yet. They seem to use an exception in the law allowing non-profits to re-broadcast TV as a public service. I think they've been operating for well over a year now.

Anyway, it's working great for us in the extreme outskirts of DFW with no OTA. We have PS Vue, which provides most everything we need, except PBS. So we're using locast to fill that gap when we want to watch PBS live (mainly NewsHour and the Saturday line-up).

We have the PBS app and Passport, but that doesn't offer the Saturday line-up of shows that we love (DIY, cooking, travel). We can get NewsHour live on YouTube but it's at 5pm central time so I usually miss it.

Locast has apps for Android, iOS, and Roku. There's supposed to be a Fire TV app soon. I'm running it on Fire TV as a Kodi add-on, which works "OK", not perfect.

Hopefully PBS will get their act together soon and we'll start seeing some member stations on the major live streaming services. Then again, if locast survives long-term, that might make me question the $50/mo we pay for PS Vue. The broadcast networks account for ~75% of what we watch.

 

[GTFan]

Sorry - lousy resolution. And I don't have a DVR and prefer not to mess with one.

Our streaming costs are way under $50 a month.

Apples and oranges - I said an equivalent streaming TV package of channels to cable is around $50 a month, not your Netflix, Prime etc. stuff. I get that a lot of folks here don't want to replicate a cable TV package but I'm simply pointing out that 'cutting the cord' often means you'll pay about as much as you do with a cable bundle if you want to watch a lot of the same stuff.

I understand not wanting to deal with DVRs, but I've had them for over a decade now and wouldn't want to do without one. Eventually they'll go away of course but IMO it's a superior way to watch TV, especially when compared to the limitations of cloud DVRs.

 

[stephenson]

Deborah,

We, too, are looking for a simple solution - prior to your post, I outlined what had happened with us and Cox - they promised a package for 12 month, then three months in they increased the package cost by about 5% (over $5/month). We inquired, they said sorry but it stands, and we terminate as of mid February.

We have one TV, fast enough streaming from Cox as our ISP, and a couple of dozen Over The Air broadcast channels we can receive with an antenna in the attic. At a very basic level, we can get the OTA channels as a replacement for the Cox channels, have the internet continue and stream what we want through our Apple TV box (simply makes it easier and has more access than your TV, unless it is already Roku capable). We buy enough stuff through Amazon that we have Prime, we pay for Netflix, and have always supported PBS so we have access to their content. Other content providers like Hulu have lots of free content - pretty random, but between all this we have more than enough entertainment.

Our Cox cost from two years ago to now: $110 then they increased to $150 when we took their second house/extended vacation offer (they said later that any vacation offer required a restart!), then back to $120, then increased to $130, then back to $105, then increased to $111 - then we said: hmmm, this will continue ... they are lying, obfuscating, marketing, being disingenuous, etc ... so, let's terminate.

Our internet only access is $50.50/month at 100 mbps downlink and 10 mbps downlink. I suspect we will fight a battle on this later, as well ... Cox is no different from Verizon we had in northern Virginia - they constantly screwed up the billing and increased when we weren't paying attention. FIOS was a bit faster, but no longer the game changer it once was.

 

[stephenson]

Rustic,

I do begrudge Robber Barons now the same way my great grand parents did in their era. While we call them something else ... it is all pretty much the same story.

Massive wealth is bad for any governmental structure.

Examples: the ratio of a Manager level person in my last company to the CEO in the same company was 1:166, and the ratio between the folks who prepared the food for the company's dining room and that same CEO was: 1:625, and the ration between $10/hour janitorial service and that CEO was:
1:1250.

Assuming there were also some hidden benefits for the CEO (certainly not for the others), the ratios were even higher.

Many CEOs make 5X as much as ours did ... so their ratios look like:
Manager:CEO = 1:830
Food service professional:CEO = 1:3125
$10/hr janitor:CEO = 1:6250

So, worst case above is a CEO is making 6,250 times as much money as a janitor - for years.

Good for the country? Good for any country?

Take a look at: https://aflcio.org/paywatch/highest-paid-ceos (No, I am not a member of a labor union - nor have I ever been)

 

[Midpack]

Apples and oranges - I said an equivalent streaming TV package of channels to cable is around $50 a month, not your Netflix, Prime etc. stuff. I get that a lot of folks here don't want to replicate a cable TV package but I'm simply pointing out that 'cutting the cord' often means you'll pay about as much as you do with a cable bundle if you want to watch a lot of the same stuff.

Not even close even live broadcast streaming where I am unless you add in internet costs, and even then we’re paying less with PS Vue ($50/mo) than a comparable Dish satellite TV package (
$96/mo (and most people pay more), and Direct TV is even more. I just don’t want readers considering dropping cable/satellite TV to assume costs are comparable. Depends on where you are, what you want and especially whether or not you’d have internet regardless. Unless you’re adding internet, or increasing speed dramatically, cable/satellite is considerably more. FWIW

 

[bobandsherry]

Apples and oranges - I said an equivalent streaming TV package of channels to cable is around $50 a month, not your Netflix, Prime etc. stuff. I get that a lot of folks here don't want to replicate a cable TV package but I'm simply pointing out that 'cutting the cord' often means you'll pay about as much as you do with a cable bundle if you want to watch a lot of the same stuff.

I understand not wanting to deal with DVRs, but I've had them for over a decade now and wouldn't want to do without one. Eventually they'll go away of course but IMO it's a superior way to watch TV, especially when compared to the limitations of cloud DVRs.

+1, totally agree. Can only do it for less if you want less, and replicating just costs more. Quite frankly, I don't want less and steaming is just clunky to use.

I'm paying $78/mo and have access to hundreds channels, simple guide and ease of use to view any channel without launching various apps, DVR capability through my TiVo and viewing on any TV in my home or basically any device outside my home. Can't come close to replicating the channel selection or ease of use with any streaming option, and I've researched many of them.

 

[Chuckanut]

Deborah,

We, too, are looking for a simple solution - prior to your post, I outlined what had happened with us and Cox - they promised a package for 12 month, then three months in they increased the package cost by about 5% (over $5/month). We inquired, they said sorry but it stands, and we terminate as of mid February.

.

Most likely your contract allowed them to raise various fees and charges for things like local broadcast TV, sports channels, equipment, etc. while still keeping you locked into the contract and a paying a penalty if you leave early. The local cable company in my area does this. I don't consider it a good or even a fair deal.

 

[RonBoyd]

I understand not wanting to deal with DVRs, but I've had them for over a decade now and wouldn't want to do without one. Eventually they'll go away of course but IMO it's a superior way to watch TV, especially when compared to the limitations of cloud DVRs.

I get lost in the terminology. I am unsure what a DVR is... I always thought it was a separate device (Digital Video Recorder) used to capture streamed media.

I have been using my computer, for the past 15 years (or so), to do that. Using SageTV, PlayOn, HDHomeRun, Plex, etc. and the local hard drive has served me well in that regard. I do, however, plan to purchase a Tablo QUAD (which complies with my definition of DVR) when it is released in March but that will be my first such device.

What am I missing?

Just cause I can <chuckle>, here a couple photos of our TV using SageTV:

 

[RunningBum]

+1, totally agree. Can only do it for less if you want less, and replicating just costs more. Quite frankly, I don't want less and steaming is just clunky to use.

I'm paying $78/mo and have access to hundreds channels, simple guide and ease of use to view any channel without launching various apps, DVR capability through my TiVo and viewing on any TV in my home or basically any device outside my home. Can't come close to replicating the channel selection or ease of use with any streaming option, and I've researched many of them.

That's where I'm at. For just watching shows or movies, I would be ok with streaming, since I'm essentially doing that by recording them and watching them later. Nice to have them in one spot though.

For live TV (sports), I like to flip between games, and that's a pain with the various apps they might be on. Maybe with some practice I'd get the sequence down faster, but right now if I'm following games on ESPN and ESPN2 I just just use recall to switch between them. Throw in a 3rd game, and I know how to quickly bounce between, say, channels 7, 140, and 143. No searching for where my game shows up on the list, which might move as other live events end and begin.

 

[RonBoyd]

Here is a spreadsheet comparing Streaming Services. I suppose one could use it to compare to his/her cable offering.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78l6I5lmhbVS1R4bU5KcHZJeE9vM3ZRXy1lbGRhRll0bWJR/view

 

[bobandsherry]

Here is a spreadsheet comparing Streaming Services. I suppose one could use it to compare to his/her cable offering.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78l6I5lmhbVS1R4bU5KcHZJeE9vM3ZRXy1lbGRhRll0bWJR/view

Thanks for sharing. But I find this easier to use, just select channels I want and let it show me what offerings it takes to replicate.

https://www.suppose.tv/tv

 

[RonBoyd]

Thanks for sharing. But I find this easier to use, https://www.suppose.tv/tv

Just adding more arrows to the quill.

 

[Midpack]

There's a lot of outright misinformation above from folks who aren't familiar, or maybe just not current, with live broadcast streaming, but we've been through it all time and time again. Whatever floats your boat...

 

[RunningBum]

There's a lot of outright misinformation above from folks who aren't familiar, or maybe just not current, with live broadcast streaming, but we've been through it all time and time again. Whatever floats your boat...

Plenty of outright misinformation from the streamers too. 5Mbps or 10MB bandwidth needed, as listed by most streaming sites (last I checked...Youtube TV actually says 3Mbps)...oh, you don't want it all choppy? Well, you really need 25MB. Stick will work find...but you really need a more expensive box. Bait and switch. I went through this last year. http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/update-on-cord-cutting-cable-tv-87375-17.html#post2028170

 

[corn18]

One nice thing that has happened since we switched to streaming vs. DTV is we watch a lot less TV. Not sure why yet, but we listen to music now on Google home vs. watch TV.

 

[RonBoyd]

One nice thing that has happened since we switched to streaming vs. DTV is we watch a lot less TV. Not sure why yet, but we listen to music now on Google home vs. watch TV.

And even then, streaming is the way to go. One can, nowadays, listen to many genres of music from just about anywhere in the world. For instance, I am now listening to WWOZ (New Orleans) while typing this in Denver. https://www.wwoz.org/

Sunday mornings on WWOZ are two hours each of Gospel, Bluegrass, Cajun/Zydeco, and Blues. And it is stuff you never hear anywhere else.

 

[bobandsherry]

One nice thing that has happened since we switched to streaming vs. DTV is we watch a lot less TV. Not sure why yet, but we listen to music now on Google home vs. watch TV.

Going to go out on a limb and say that's because there's less to be watched and more likely it's less convenient. Maybe switch to just HD OTA antennae and see if the amount of time goes down further. Now if that's what makes ya happy, the kudo's!

 

[corn18]

Going to go out on a limb and say that's because there's less to be watched and more likely it's less convenient. Maybe switch to just HD OTA antennae and see if the amount of time goes down further. Now if that's what makes ya happy, the kudo's!

I think you may be right. I kinda like it.

 

[audreyh1]

Quite frankly, I don't want less and steaming is just clunky to use.

Streaming is clunky?!? I found cable TV terribly clunky and streaming a delightfully elegant alternative in addition to costing way less.

Obviously the smoothness of the experience is in the eye of the beholder/user.

 

[Midpack]

Can only do it for less if you want less, and replicating just costs more. Quite frankly, I don't want less and steaming is just clunky to use.

I’m curious how much streaming you’ve experienced, and what apps? We pay about half vs satellite and we have more if anything, not less in any real way. Streaming isn’t clunky at all, the guide layout etc. is almost identical.