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
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.
There's a Wikipedia page about it.
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?
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
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
It's absolutely a viable option. There is more produced every day than you could ever hope to consume in a lifetime. "Cord cutting" is mainly a matter of getting over your current addiction, and acquiring a new one.
Whatever it is that you 'want' to watch on cable, there's another option online that will entertain you just as much.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
If you want to watch a popular show, you only have a choice if there are several services that provide that show. I doubt there are many shows that are available on several streaming services.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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!
I cut the cord over two years ago and am glad for it. And I don't find any reason to download illegal content. But you are right on one thing, when you cut the cord you miss out on things only cable can deliver... which is mostly the obscene amount of your life spent watching advertising. When I travel and get to revisit the pleasure of cable in my hotel room, it typically lasts for less than 20 minutes because I will change the channel when a commercial comes on... and after doing that a couple of times I get bored, turn it off and either stream something to a tablet or just read a book.
Anyone who says cutting the cord is a lesser experience either hasn't given it a fair shot, or... wait, I can't think of an "or". Now that I think on it, I haven't met anyone who has claimed they cut the cord for more than a couple of months and then gone back to cable. I use a Roku to tie together the streaming services of my choice. I use Roku's search or an app on my phone to track down where (i.e. which streaming service) I can find anything I want to watch. And if none of them have what I want, I still have enough money in my budget (leftover from not buying cable) to just purchase (legally) the entire season of whatever it is I feel like watching from a variety of vendors (Amazon, Google, Vudu, etc...).
So in the past two years I have: 1 - spent less on streaming content than I previously spent on cable, 2 - watched everything I ever wanted to watch when I want to watch it, 3 - gotten I don't know how many hours of my life back by not being forced to watch so many darn commercials. I can't think of a downside.
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.
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.
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.
Just to aggravate the hell out of twerps like you is one good reason.
>"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.
Once you kick the habit, it's definitely an option. And a damn fine one.
Also there is a huge logical fallacy in the articles argument, which is that you will subscribe full-time to these services instead of switching every few months.
When I first used Netflix streaming, I held the plan for about a year. Since then I subscribe for ~2 months per year because I've already exhausted their core catalog. They have some content I am not getting elsewhere, but I dont need a 24/7/365 plan to consume it.
Amazons non-prime model is pay as you go, while their prime model is tied to more than just streaming video. Disney can do the first and that would be great, but they cant do the second at all. They are going for the Netflix model and that just isnt going to land 24/7/365 business.
"His name was James Damore."
And you'd be wrong.... although I wouldn't argue that you might be right as a generalization, speaking from personal experience, after my wife and I cut our cable subscription, we still watched all of the shows that we would otherwise watch on television entirely legally, by just streaming them from the network's website. The only caveat to this was that you couldn't watch it until the day after it aired, and an episode was not available for free streaming anymore after a week.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's quite different here in Australia, cable/pay tv is not the norm here, most people have stuck with free-to-air tv. Streaming services, as a result are gaining in popularity, because they're a lot cheaper.
With that said, free to air audiences have dropped significantly, peak audiences are about half what they were from a decade ago (excluding sport). I really watch very little TV, and go months at a time without switching it on. I tend to find more interesting things published on youtube. While I'm not indicative of everyone, it is a trend that has been noticed. There was recent market research on TV viewing habits which found that baby boomers were the only age group to maintain their screen time, all others are in decline, especially current adults in their 20's.
This is spelling trouble for our TV networks, as their business model is significantly changing. One of the networks (there are only three free to air networks) here is close to going bankrupt.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Also there is a huge logical fallacy in the articles argument, which is that you will subscribe full-time to these services instead of switching every few months.
That's a really good point.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
It's not capitalistic competition because multiple streaming services don't have the same shows. If we were talking about five streaming services that must compete on price because they all had access to play the same shows, then there would be actual competition for price. But we don't have that. Netflix usually doesn't have the current season, and now doesn't have Disney shows/movies. If you want to watch Game of Thrones you usually have to have a cable package AND pay HBO. That's not real competition, that's totally destroyed competition by contractual agreements.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't think it's a good point. That makes streaming even more of a pain in the ass and adds to the idea that streaming isn't working out for consumers as it should. Now I need to remember which services I am subscribing to and which I'm not? I need to predict which ones I am going to want and remember to cancel them? Man that's a pain.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
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
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)
But it's not the type of competition that will lower prices. Maybe some people are willing to settle for whatever the streaming service they pay for has, but they are by and large getting an even trade; you pay less for netflix but they also have less desirable content to offer. On the contrary, if someone wanted to watch the Game of Throne finale last Sunday, there isn't exactly five streaming services begging you to watch it on their service, all feeling pressure to give the same quality service at a lower price.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Also there is a huge logical fallacy in the articles argument, which is that you will subscribe full-time to these services instead of switching every few months.
Rotating among services won't remain so practical as these OTT VOD services start to encourage an annual commitment by raising the monthly price. In addition, live sports streaming services tend to be sold by the season.
That depends. Last year, and probably this year, I watch a number of CW shows. Hulu doesn't carry those shows. OTOH, there's a lot of stuff Netflix & Hulu DO carry. I'd miss specific shows, but I'd still have plenty of crap to watch.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I mean, you can pay for a few services but that probably won't give you exactly what you want.
That entirely depends on what you want. Everyone I know that cancelled their cable TV only wanted 3 or 4 of the shows that were on it. It's very easy to replace that and still have exactly what you want.
Well I didn't mention that I'm in Canada.. Apparently I can't get HBO Go. Didn't know it was available on Amazon and Google Play, but I probably can't view those either.
Provided that Amazon and Google Play are actually competing on a level playing field as HBO themselves, then yes you're right that is adequate competition. However, I don't see how they would be competing directly with the network.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
Nah, just choose one, and subscribe to it for a while. It doesn't matter which one. When you get bored of it, cancel it and move on to the next one. Simple. If you subscribe to the same on twice, that's not a problem either.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Well I didn't mention that I'm in Canada.. Apparently I can't get HBO Go.
Sorry, didn't realize non-Americans thought they were people.
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'm sure that some are doing exactly this, but my guess is most everyone who is OK with piracy is already doing it anyway.
Anecdotally, out of a half dozen or so people I personally know who cut the cable, not a single one of them changed their piracy habits (5 don't pirate anything, 1 has been pirating for years anyway).
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
I think a lot of people base their viewing on the service they have. I base my viewing on what I want to watch. I consider being forced into the former solution a pretty big step back in terms of service.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I found that once I "cut the cord" that I didn't really care that much about most of the shows on TV. Occasionally I hear about a show and I think "that would be a cool show to watch", but then I usually forget about it. You see no cable means I don't see many commercials and commercials for TV shows are especially rare. So either the shows eventually come out on Netflix or DVD and then I may watch them, if I'm still interested. Sometimes they don't, probably because they were cancelled after fewer than 11 episodes. In any case, it's not exactly "settling", it's without the constant advertisements, there's nothing to make me care about TV shows that I don't even know exist.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You don't think you can find something you want to watch on any of the major streaming services?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm not sure what I can get here in Canada, but I have netflix and most of the shows I watch aren't on there. If a show is on there, they don't have the current season, so I would need to stop watching for a year and then continue.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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!!!
...so I would need to stop watching for a year and then continue.
Ultimately, what's wrong with that?
Watching loads of YouTube content has really gotten me away from the "it's new, I gotta watch it now" mentality. These days, I'll watch something 3 years old, followed by something made last week, followed by something made a year and a half ago, all on the same channel. It doesn't make any difference to me. If it's a series of connected videos, someone has invariably created a playlist, and I watch that. The videos in the series often aren't even released in succession, but several series by the same guy released over the same span of time.
If a TV show is good, it'll be good in a year, and you can buy a permanent copy of the full season for less than you'd pay for the monthly subscription for several shows. Then you can watch them at your leisure. You can hit up two or three episodes at a time if you've got a block of time to waste, or you can only watch one episode every few weeks, whatever. You're never going to miss an episode, because you control the programming.
This depends highly on your viewing habits, of course. If you only watch 3 or 4 shows per "season" of television programming, it's totally worth it, but if you watch 15 or 20 then it definitely isn't worth it (e.g. you're watching a couple hours of TV shows every night of the week). The bulk pricing of the subscription model saves you money in that case.
If one of your primary reasons for watching a show is to be able to talk about it with your social circle, then that's also a case where your subscription is the only way to go.
But if you only follow a handful of shows at a time, and you watch them because you enjoy the content, then what's the difference between watching them now and watching them a year from now?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller