Slashdot Mirror
Columnist Mocks The Case Against Cord-Cutting As 'Too Many Choices' (techhive.com)
An anonymous reader quote TechHive:
The cord-cutting naysayers are trotting out a new argument in favor of cable, and it's even more absurd than the old ones: Having too many high-quality, standalone streaming services, they say, is actually bad for consumers, who are apparently helpless at using technology or making sound purchase decisions... The New York Post's Johnny Oleksinski concluded that all those sneering hipsters who've had the nerve to ditch cable are about to get their comeuppance -- in the form of additional services to choose from... By now, anyone who's actually cut the cable cord should be screaming out in unison: No one's making you subscribe to all these services! You can pick the ones you care about most, rotate between services, or occupy your screen time with a growing number of other digital distractions...
I will concede that if you want to use multiple streaming services, trying to sift through them all can be confusing. But even this concern is blown entirely out of proportion by naysaying pundits, who seem to ignore solutions that already exist. Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu, while features like Roku Feed and the Apple TV TV app demonstrate how system-wide browsing is getting easier. Besides, using a handful of apps to get what you want isn't that burdensome -- especially for the growing audience of people who've been raised on smartphones... consumers are smarter than they're getting credit for. That's why cable subscriptions continue to plunge, even as these bogus stories keep popping up like clockwork.
I will concede that if you want to use multiple streaming services, trying to sift through them all can be confusing. But even this concern is blown entirely out of proportion by naysaying pundits, who seem to ignore solutions that already exist. Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu, while features like Roku Feed and the Apple TV TV app demonstrate how system-wide browsing is getting easier. Besides, using a handful of apps to get what you want isn't that burdensome -- especially for the growing audience of people who've been raised on smartphones... consumers are smarter than they're getting credit for. That's why cable subscriptions continue to plunge, even as these bogus stories keep popping up like clockwork.
It's 2017 and those are 90's arguments.
They're not wrong about that part. The REASON monopolies that fail us exist? We allow it. We pay them to. Consumerism as we know it marches us into bondage.
"who are apparently helpless at using technology or making sound purchase decisions"
And how much did the cable and satellite companies pay Johnny Oleksinski to write that article?
#DeleteFacebook
There are many, many options. Most of them are high-quality and one of them is low-quality. Therefore, because there are so many options, the low-quality one is best.
This is why I think anyone who says they cut the cord and can watch what they want are still downloading or streaming a fair amount illegally. I mean, you can pay for a few services but that probably won't give you exactly what you want. You can limit your choices to entertainment available on those services but that's just settling.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
They can charge 2 dollars or 200 dollars, I don't care. To me it's all free.
The fragmentation of services like HBO and the new Disney service will lead to a case against cord cutting, but the same can be said for piracy. A legit case against cord cutting is also a case that can be made for piracy.
You would have thought they learned their lesson.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
... you could, you know, just go outside and have a life away from screens.
Cord-cutting is still not quite a viable option. I wish it were but there are still some channels that I watch that are not available via streaming.
There's a Wikipedia page about it.
One should be careful what they wish for, as it just might come true. Cable channels are moving in a direction of letting you choose to get a bundle of streams (which contain a bunch of stuff you don't want) which is suspiciously similar to a cable TV channel bundle, or stream just their channel but have to make an account and manage an app for just that one channel. Do you really want a separate app with a unique UI, for every channel you care about? And an associated username/password and automatic updates to all of those apps? The iOS HBO Go app is 41MB, and ESPN app is 55MB, so 50 channel apps would be ~2GB.
Some channels let you stream through existing streaming apps (e.g. HBO on Amazon Video, IIRC) as addons, and things will likely move in that direction soon... but do we really want a few web companies like Amazon and Apple to be the new gatekeepers rather than Comcast or Time Warner? Who's to say the new boss will be better than the old boss? A few more rounds of mergers and acquisitions and these companies will have conflicts of interest on the scale of Comcast.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Age 51, computer geek since 1977. My dad began with RCA in 1947 installing television sets. We never had cable or satellite, the concept of paying for television being bonkers, so what's there to miss? Movies and CDs I can check out from the library. Seriously, paying for television?
Cord-cutter mocks columnist for being an idiot. Yeah, really sucks to have a lot of choices.
Shouldn't the title read "Columnist Mocks The Case For Cord-Cutting ..."
I've never watched much TV as an adult, and only had cable when my roommates wanted it in college. However, there are a few things I want to watch sometimes, and it's extremely frustrating to try to find one to three services that will allow me to watch those few things at a reasonable price.
If I watched more than this, I think it would probably be simpler and cheaper to just get cable or satellite.
I suspect and hope that one day the shakeout that's happening now will be resolved, and real a la carte service will be available.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
The dumber you are the less choices you want.
Too many choices? If you say so. I think people can handle having choices. I personally choose not to participate.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Cord cutting reveals the content distribution chain as a series of monopolies. By copyright law, the producer of content owns a monopoly. But through subsequent licensing deals, additional monopolies are created. Like the last mile pipe, content distribution networks, and DNS, streaming infrastructure is a shared service that provide benefit to everyone on the net yet when commercially owned creates monopolies or walled gardens.
I remember interview with some Hollywood type in which they expressed a strong hatred for streaming services because the brand was no longer the studio or the production house but it was the program itself. The same effect is happening with streaming services. I don't think of "Man in the high Castle" as part of the Amazon brand. Its brand is "Man in the high Castle".
I think it's past time for a RAND policy for all content and a method of making sure everyone gets paid
Having too many streaming services isn't "too many choices" it's "too many bills."
...is that I want to be able to watch whatever I want, whenever I want. To accomplish that I would most likely need local broadcast + multiple streaming services, some of which aren't supported by the same hardware. Not a deal breaker, but the costs add up the more I have to pay for additional streaming services.
My ideal situation would be: single streaming device, pay for movies on a per-movie basis, pay for TV shows on a per-season basis or per-episode basis (discount for purchasing whole season), pay for sporting events on a per-event basis or per-"team season" basis.
Other than Jeopardy, Masterpiece Theatre, Nova, and Nature, there hasn't been a show on television I care to watch since Cosby and Frasier. All the new stuff is full of swear words and sex, bleh, not in my living room.
Cable companies have been bumping up Internet prices to compensate for the lost revenue.
The difference in cost does not have to be forwarded to ABC/Disney/ESPN and others for their expensive bundle.
The difference in cost does not have to be forwarded to local TV stations for the privilege of rebroadcasting in lower quality.
The main benefit to the consumer is the lack of commercials.
Why is this clown getting any attention at all, let alone from /.?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
No matter what choice people are given if it requires me to give them money, long term those that provide me value will get my money.
This isn't an argument that can have a single truth that covers everyone. There are some people who are experiencing the difficulties described and many who aren't. People are different with different levels of capability and tolerance. If there is no way that you will give up live access to CNN, you can't cut your cable. I cut my cable more than a decade ago and still miss certain aspects.
In my case, I will not pay more than about $20 per month for the family beyond my internet costs for all media purchases combined. I'd likely maintain that limit even if I had limitless income because it serves the purpose of limiting my viewing time too.
That generally means I'll pay for two services and no more. Right now, I'm just paying for Netflix and a music service. There is no chance that Disney or any other service will ever get my business unless they can fully supplant Netflix for the same price. If the price point is significantly compromised, I'll go back to watching only what is free.
If you could also cut the cord on Cable Internet. Maybe that would get some attention from the cable companies...
There don't seem to be any choices other than surfing at the library or on your phone or connected tablet.
Did anyone else read that headline as "Communist Mocks The Case Against Cord-Cutting As 'Too Many Choices' ? Ah, so what. Communist, columnist, what's the difference, eh goy?
Oy vey! It's anudda Shoah, I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
That is all that matters. It is all that matters to the cable company and it is that matters to me. Comcast has a stranglehold on internet being tied to cable subscription or being more expensive, so the cable sits, unused. However, with adblock, and uhh..Adobe Flash..yeah, ahem, well..I can watch several shows without commercials on the interwebs. The technology is there, but cable companies are doing this to themselves. I do not want to pay to watch commercials. They want their cake and the internet, too. The subscription story is bullshit. Anyone with a working bullshit detector should be able to spot that a mile away. Meanwhile a bunch of overpaid simpleton idiots cheer on the demise of choice, while masquerading as small government patriots.
Zero! Don't watch TV, it's such a waste of time. Life is worth living, go do it!
Streaming used to be seen as an alternative to cable, but let's face it: It's turning out to be the same. Yes, yes, you can now choose when to watch your show instead of having to wait for it to appear on X-day Y-time, but face it, the difference is nonexistent. Now, instead of watching it when it's aired you watch it when it is available for streaming, and if you want to watch it later, you basically save yourself the VCR programming, because that's basically what watching it later than release essentially is.
Well, maybe (soon) without the ability to skip ads.
No ads you say? There were no ads in cable either in the beginning. Give it time.
The rest is already the same as cable was. Again you get different streaming providers that offer different content, which isn't so different from the different cable packages. Again you get to pay for provider (package) A, even though you are only interested in 10% of its programming. You'd want to watch show B, but show B is only available from provider (package) C, so you either have to shell out another X bucks to get that provider (package) even though all you really want from it is that one show and you couldn't care less for the rest of what comes bundled with it.
Face it: Streaming is the new cable. You just let someone else rip you off.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The question is - Why does someone read the New York Post? Spending time talking about an article on the New York Post is a waste of time.
There might be an actual downside: many new services require a new monthly charge. It's possible that if you want to get a wide array of content you'll end up paying as much or more as for cable. Personally, I'd rather take that chance than be forced to pay for a ton of channels that I definitely will never view.
>"Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu[...]"
You left out TiVo, which was not only first, but still one of the most powerful. Couple it with either cable or OTA antenna and go to town.
It would seem that even some basic AI might help here. Something along the lines of what Amazon and Netflix already provide with the "If you liked this, you might also like..." features except cross platform. From there it's just a hop a skip and a jump to separate AI agents and profiles for each family member, parental controls and all of the other usual features. These cable naysayers might find themselves kicked to the curb by AI just as other workers already have been.
I only subscribe to Netflix; not paying for any others. If it's not on Netflix, I simply don't care.
Disagreed with you yesterday on security, but totally modding you up today for this. These kids today (TM) haven't been around long enough to realize this. It'll be another one of life's hard lessons for them.
Crap, I forgot that doesn't work! Oh well, good luck!
The UI fragmentation alone will piss people off.
Seriously, people are paying nearly $20,000 a decade to watch TV? Holy shit!!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
....he can't share a cable stream like he can a Netflix or Hulu password. THAT'S why the cost argument falls on my cutters' deaf ears; they're already saving. If one pays the going rate, the argument isn't as nearly as compelling as the whiny author makes it out to be.
Where I live, internet service is pretty pricy unless bundled with cable.
Yes, your total bill is less if you leave out cable, but the "get you coming and get you going" to pay a large monthly fee whatever you choose.
Too many choices?!? Curse that capitalism and the need for competition to drive down prices while maintaining quality. If only there were some sort of centralized government planning system that would solve the problem of people having agency over their own lives....
It's not a competition. Cable will fit better certain types of TV watchers, cord cutting will fit others better. And it's a plenty different selection of stuff.
But the whole idea is that cord cutting is an option now, and I hope more and more people start adapting to it and stop giving money to these oligopolies.
And I do get where the guy who wrote the original article is coming from. Disney is taking their content out of Netflix, a bunch of other production studios, branches and whatnot are creating their own video streaming services, and content is being fragmented instead of getting formed around single services.
One service like Netflix is way cheaper than paying cable with some 200 channels or something like that, but the underlying truth about this is that it's only cheap because Netflix came early to the game, closed very lucrative deals with studios and whatnot to put their content there, and as soon as those studios starts figuring out how to do it by themselves, they'll start cancelling contracts and branching off. It is by no coincidence that Netflix is investing heavily in original content, and that Apple and other big corporations are investing money on it too - it's because of this current tendency of studios branching off and creating their own streams.
Makes it bad for people who wants to watch a whole bunch of content that is thinly distributed around half a dozen services or more. It's too much to handle, and you start going for aggregators that are not often as easy to deal with than just cable, the price starts getting close to cable subscription too.
It is true though that if you do take advantage of the fact that cable TV aggregates tons of content for a more or less fixed price, in order for you to do the same for streaming services it can get pricy and hard to handle plenty fast. I can understand the reluctance of families with very ecletic tastes to cord cut, specially when there's no one tech savvy there (or with not time) to handle the administration of it. You get one dad or son who wants to watch live sports, plus a kid who watches cartoon channels, a wife or whatever who watches cooking shows and variety stuff, perhaps a grandfather who has to watch live news, and a few other variables and you have a recipe for cord cutting not being an attractive solution.
Comcast has cold-called me multiple times asking if I want to bundle, and they always seem so surprised that I simply don't watch TV. No, I'm not interested in Game of Thrones. The NFL can suck it. Cable companies have **nothing** worth watching. They simply cannot appeal to me. I'm not paying for something I don't use. I don't even download anything any more. I'm done with media companies, and it's amusing to hear that awkward silence when the wind is taken out of their sales sail. They clearly don't train their employees correctly.
The moment netflix or stan gets ads is the moment piracy gets an uptick and streaming services do 2 steps back.
Not really? Cable was first a co-op that put up a mast and pushed OTA into homes that were in a valley. Commercials were included.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Back in the day, people had these things called antennas, and watched gasp, broadcast TV. The quality of three networks (Fox began in 1986) was much higher, with shows that the entire family could watch. And did watch.
Now what we have is a lot of shows with niche appeal that can be viewed without paying for all sorts of things nobody really wants. Most likely, people will go back to free, over the air TV for things like NFL football, network TV (there are now FIVE: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW) and a myriad thanks to digital of over-the-air only networks: ME, Retro, and COZI TV, Heroes and Icons, Grit, True, Movies, Bounce, Comet, The Works, This, Antenna, Laugh, BUZZER, Ion and Ion Family, plus Light TV. That's near cable bundle and does not count things like NHK and First Nations and other subchannels of Public TV stations. All of it, free.
Leaving people able to pick the lowest cost choice on top of over-the-air. There is a lot of free stuff on the Roku, and if you have Amazon Prime you get free shows like Grand Tour. Absent Monday Night, most NFL games are on Free over the air TV. A few Thursday games are on NFL Network only. But most are free. CBS has the SEC game of the week for free, as does NBC with Notre Dame and teams like that, NASCAR, and the Winter Olympics.
With OTA you get tiling during windy days using rabbit ears or the flat wave indoor antenna, most reasonable rooftop antennas get enough signal its not a problem. There is no rain fade unlike with Satellite. Or rain causing cable to fail. With a reasonable Mediasonic or such like receiver that hooks into a USB hard drive for recording, you have basically a digital VCR that allows you to transfer a tv show to a tablet or phone for viewing on a commute via train/bus, or your computer, etc.
Initial cost is roughly: $120 rooftop antenna; plus installation if you can't do it yourself; $40 for a Mediasonic or other VCR like "dumb" media recorder (no TIVO like capability); a USB hard drive for $50, a Roku for $65. All told that's $275 or so, initial outlay. Payback is in 3 months with $98 a month cable bill. After that, your cost monthly is zero. NO dollars. That gives you wiggle room to add something like Hulu or Netflix. And still pay about two large lattes a month for TV content.
...and it begins and ends with N.F.L.
Nice but not very common. If you are in an apartment, you can't install your own rooftop antena. If you are on/near the hills, forget about consistent reception. And finding the right place to live makes cable costs a rounding error.
I shit my pants. I cleaned it out with a bag of chips. Very yummy stuff.
Governments aren't deleting DNS records anymore, they're using national firewalls (most countries have one) to block IP addresses. To see unlicensed entertainment content, one must now use a VPN. China is the first to block those but I suspect the war on copyright piracy/infringement (labelled 'national security' in some countries) will get other governments making similar laws.
Without trying 24 channels perfect reception excluding duplicates and religious stations with a simple $5 wire dipole jobber. Oh and perpetually updated TV guide included. Total monthly cost: $0.00.
Cable costs at least $100/month to pay for a lot more channels I will never in my life watch /w compression jacked up considerably v. OTA.
Tough choice...
I use netflix.
I have Amazon Prime but they tried so hard to steer me into non-free content that I stopped using it.
It was really irritating to search, find a show, dig down into the show, sometimes even the 1st episode was free, and then "oh and now it's $2.99 an episode".
I still *have* the subscription for the free shipping. I do NOT use the streaming video (tho I might for the Tick).
I may if they add an easy way to hide content with an additional charge in my search results.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Streaming is good for people who want just to have one or two high quality channels, like say Netflix and Amazon. But if you have a household with kids, and everyone has his favorite show, soon you realize you want to have a full service cable subscription, because it has all the movie channels, all the cartoon channels, all the sports channels, and all the news channels.
In the UK we have choice over who we pay to watch sport. When it was a monopoly we just paid one outrageous monthly figure, now that there is competition we need to pay more to two or more companies to receive the same number of matches/events.
I'm an old fart. I distinctly remember that there were some "premium" channels that had no ads since you paid for them. Then slowly they started to have "promos" for their upcoming programming, soon after you endured "promos" for various shows they showed on other channels, and eventually when they noticed that people did actually swallow this, it was only a small step to normal ads. But only after shows and films and not interrupting them. At first, at least. Then it was just one ad block cutting a film in half.
One slowly boiled frog later, we're now at cable being on par with OTA programming.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... different from cable-companies doing effectively the very same thing?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
My own cure for the problem of that interesting show being on the streaming service I don't have is to wait for the end of the season, which means only about 10 episodes these days anyhow, and then view it on Netflix DVD.
The streaming market is now in that phase after a new tech becomes popular when there are large numbers of brands on the market. It was this way with cars in the 1920s. After the forthcoming big wave of consolidation, it won't be so much of a problem.
If everyone did that, who would post replies on Slashdot?
I guess his point is: 5 bucks for a VPN and you can get all of them for free.
I had cable like for 6 weeks in my whole life... according to them how am I still alive ?!
I should be dead by now! I must be a miracle!
Stream cutting is coming next.
Me and my wife cut the cable maybe 5-6 years ago... and now we are looking at how much we watch netflix and asking if it's really worth the ~$10 a month (or whatever it is now).
We have netflix and amazon prime, so that adds up, and we've talked for a while about cutting netflix off, and just going to actual theaters more often with the cash we save.
Of course none of this would be nearly the issue if we didn't have people take a hit in disposable income, the moment that happened people started looking for ways to save money, cutting the home phone line, and cutting the cable made sense, and once they start down that path there are people who will continue down it, regularly reviewing their monthly bills and looking to eliminate as many of them as possible.
But it's a bigger PitA to give money to an organization which funds things like SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/etc and are generally a bunch of fuckers when it comes to customer service. I'd rather pay 2x as much in all across a dozen different providers to receive the same content without funding people who lobby against what I consider basic Human rights in the modern era - such as online privacy.
No ads you say? There were no ads in cable either in the beginning. Give it time.
There is a huge difference, it's very easy to stop your subscription and go to another streaming service that doesn't do ads.
if you cancel your cable, it's so much more difficult and sometimes you even have to pay because they will 'disconnect' your cable or some other bs excuse.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
I guess I need to get on my Fire TV tonight and see. That was always something that annoyed me that I would have to open Netflix and use its search, but searching from the Fire TV I could get all the Amazon content. If this is true, I may activate my Amazon Prime again...
For now.
You really think it stays that way? We're already having some film makers and distributors insisting on creating their own streaming service, meaning that you have to get show A from stream provider B, or you will not watch show A, at least not via stream. I'd expect to see some "exclusive" content very soon, and you can rest assured that pretty much everything worth watching will be "exclusive" content.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Movies Theaters with cable TV.
This reminds me of those US Post Office commercials from a few years ago that were trying to encourage businesses to mail invoices and receipts because "people want a paper copy".
Proverbs 21:19
I'm not reading the article but there is a difference between two many choices (which is an absurd complaint) and too much fragmentation (which is a more fair complaint). When Disney pulls it's offerings from Netflix just so they can start their own streaming service that's just annoying and frustrating fragmentation. It's an additional cost on viewer's wallets and viewer's time as they have to reassess and/or reconfigure their streaming setups to ensure that these new streaming servers are compatible.
I mean Hulu was originally framed as a way to consolidate all the free streaming channels. Then they fragmented it into free and paid and now it's just paid. There's an aspect to cable that's simple and that's you pay one company to get it all. It has HUGE problems around price valuation. Problems so big it's driven most of us to streaming offerings but I get very annoyed at the complexity of streaming offerings.
People are confused, people need help on what to do. Television is the simple choice. Television has two choices, take it , or leave it. Watch it, or don't.
Watch it on the device we choose, at the time we choose, at the location where we approve, and it will just work.
Let television make the choice for you.
Stale, static, commercial laden content. There is always a commercial somewhere, and there is always stale static, commercial laden content waiting for you, all for a small monthly fee, plus a small fee for the device, plus a small regulatory fee, plus a small rental fee.
Just watch what cable wants you to watch, when it should be watched, where it should be watched, on the devices approved, it's that simple.
The content providers themselves are contributing to the problem. The trend towards offering content that is exclusively available only to subscribers of certain streaming providers is creating a situation where people are being driven to subscribe to multiple services to view "exclusive" content is the start of a troubling trend. Examples include:
1) Disney pulling all of their content (including Star Wars) off of competing streaming platforms, such as Netflix, onto their new service.
2) CBS offering content exclusively on their service, such as the new "Star Trek - Discovery", which will only be offered on "CBS All Access".
3) Netflix and Amazon, creating shows that are only available on their respective services.
Even those of us who have not cut the cords of cable TV, are having to subscribe to additional services to get content. I think we are beginning to see a future, where you will have to subscribe to multiple services to view content that is "exclusive" to each service, thus driving up costs for everyone.
The key issue people have had with the subscription service we call "cable TV" is their (former) monopoly status.
"Former"? In many areas, the incumbent cable ISP retains a monopoly on home Internet access with a data transfer quota exceeding 100 GB/mo. This lets the cable ISP dump TV service on its Internet subscribers by pricing a bundle of Internet access and basic TV the same as Internet alone, leaving the subscriber to pay only the local network affiliate retransmission consent royalty and the regional sports royalty. The competing ISPs would charge several times more for the same cap, as they're limited by their satellite or cellular last mile.
Or do you think "Disney" when you say "Star Wars"?
Do you think "Disney" when you say "Tangled" or "Frozen"? Of course you do, unless you're talking about the other Tangled or the other Frozen .
Movies and CDs I can check out from the library.
Good luck getting to the library branch before 6 PM on Friday evening when it closes for the weekend. (Citations available upon request)
I'm an old fart. I distinctly remember that there were some "premium" channels that had no ads since you paid for them
I'm also an old fart. You remember wrong. HBO and the other premium channels always had promos for other shows on that channel. They used it to fill time so that the movies/shows would start on an even time (8pm instead of 7:52pm).
Nah. Netflix's "Kids mode" is plenty nice.
I guess this version of too many choices is different than the fake channels you get with a cable subscription (hundreds of channels, only 2-3 any good).
Yeah, we aren't popular on /. but buying internet subs to sports just doesn't replace what I get on Dish Network:
Cut the cord prices:
MLB Package; $150 per year with local games blacked out
NHL package: $140 per year and all national and local games are blacked out
NFL, Not available so use OTA for what games are shown in my area
Big10 sports, not available on the internet unless you have that cable/sat subscription
NBA Don't care.
Netflix $12.00 per month for 4K
Crunchyroll for $7.00 per month
Tablo OTA DVR $5.00 per month for the guide to be able to schedule recordings
ESPN-- I only watch for NFL football so not missing that.
Add it up and you get $60.00 per month plus what I spend at the Sports bar to watch the Packers when they aren't on local TV and I still don't have everything that my $90 per month subscription to Dish Network gets me.
So for this sports fan that is currently experimenting with cutting the cord it doesn't look like I will save that much money.
Crap, I forgot that doesn't work! Oh well, good luck!
What doesn't? Commenting anonymously? Works for me. You might need some sort of incognito mode though.
Broadcast TV has degenerated into a full-time advertising and propaganda vessel for disseminating and promoting sales to the wealthiest 20%. It is used to keep the population fearful of one another, and especially to promote fear of "the other". News is propaganda, of thinly veiled free publicity for favored local businesses.
In other words, its sole purpose is to manipulate the population to do the bidding of the status quo, to maintain sales of an unsustainable lifestyle of waste and constant impoverishment, all while dangling an unattainable vision of an impossible lifestyle of the hope that everyone could live like kings.
The purpose is to leave the masses in a state of quivering, easily herded non-thinkers, ready to be slaughtered by a deadly diet of fast foods, enormous quantities of cheap food-like substances, and killer sodas, after being driven into poverty by a predatory pharmacological and medical system that extorts compliance under the duress of finding a so-called "cure" for the diseases caused by the Standard American Diet.
PlaynBass
I've done it. I ha[d|ve] AT&T U-verse. I hated paying $10 for HD service when SD service no longer exists anywhere except for cable-land so they can continue to charge extra for it. Unless I purchase 400+ channels that I don't want to watch and can't even watch. So, I downgraded to just Basic cable. This month, I finally finished the upgrade to the antenna system, Plex media server upgrade, and verified that I average 600 Gb/month on internet traffic with all the changes. Plex serves the HD antenna live stuff to my TVs (Amazingly, AT&T basic is only 20 channels but with the HD antenna I'm picking up 45 local channels). And I can pause, record with it. I have SlingTV for "cable" channels that I do care about which is probably about half of what they offer.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. I called AT&T to cancel Basic since I'm up and running fine through my own implementation, and they guy was telling me I would be data capped to 1TB since I wouldn't have a TV service to keep it unlimited, cue scary music. When I told him that I didn't need to worry as I verified that I avg 600 GB/month and have never come close to 1TB. Then the song and dance of how great cable was and that I should at least keep the box and the basic for $19. I still told him no and then he said if I didn't cancel cable he would give it to me for $10. I asked for how long and would I need a contract? Lifetime of the service (barring the usual increases). The answer was no. When I said that I didn't have a box to view it and my Smart TV doesn't have a tuner card and I didn't want to rent a box. And he said that would be included in the $10 and no contracts. And since I kept Basic, the cost of my internet speed at 75 Mbps (top tier for Uverse in my area), would continue to be discounted and I pay $10 (the cost of HD) for unlimited internet which according to the customer service guide, is $10-15 cheaper than paying for Internet access alone and I'm back to unlimited.
So, I'll conclude that cord cutting is freaking out (at least AT&T) the cable companies because how they bundle stuff and change are just absurd. It's not like I don't want cable but I don't need 15 different copies of the same channel, Honestly, with Netflix/Hulu/SlingTV, all my needs have been met for under $50 plus the cost of Internet access which I don't include because I would pay for that regardless of cable. The reality is I believe is that I received cable for $10 because it's more important to them to have a subscriber. I'll just call the $10 backup TV (if ever needed the box isn't even hooked up) and keep my Internet unlimited and costs down.
So, am I still a cord cutter? As far as I'm concerned yes. Will, I stop paying for Basic? Yes. I'm in Charlotte and I'm waiting for Google Fiber to finish the roll out here (please let them finish) and then I'll get faster Internet and no longer need to carry $10 for unlimited.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Well, everyone likes having choices, but the problem I see is that when there's something on hulu that I want to see, then something on Amazon, and then something on RedTube, then something on Netflix and then something on (insert streaming service name here), I end up having to buy $15 subscriptions to each one and suddenly I'm paying the going rate for cable all over again.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
If guacamole was getting paid for this it would instantly stop being fun! Follow your dreams and don't forget to tune in to the premiere of Gilligan's Island (2017) tonight on NBC!!!
Just say no to your children. No more Disney. Stop handing over you money to them so they can buy their Teslas and their electric hookers.