Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Understood.

I was paying $60/month for DTV Now and $55/month for internet.

I now pay $110/month for cable and internet.

@MikeDeTiger FYI I always recommend Roku for some of the reasons you state. Amazon Fire Stick doesn't want to support Youtube TV because they're competitors. Chromecast is obviously pro-Google. Apple TV is all about promoting Apple.

Roku is both in a dominant market position and platform-agnostic, which means that all the services not only have to deal with them but also that they have no reason to promote or dissuade any particular service. So Roku is my favorite device.

Plus, per your point re: a remote... It has one.


Are you sure it's $35 bundled? For example in my Cox post above, I currently pay $103 for internet, and if I switch to bundle, I get internet + TV for $110. That sounds like a GREAT deal to bundle, right?

But it doesn't include the fact that after 12 months, bundling is $238. And it doesn't include that I might be paying equipment rental fees on DVRs for each TV (two in my house, which is low for modern homes). And it doesn't include the myriad taxes and fees that suddenly show up on the bill.

I'm guessing the $110 rate, once my bill arrives and equipment/taxes/fees are added, wouldn't be $110 any more. Which means that neither would the $238.

And that doesn't even factor in the lack of contracts. When I was on Sling, I would ditch it between the end of the NCAA tournament and the beginning of college football. That's almost 6 months of not paying a dime. You can't do that with cable or satellite.



Well, you don't stack Youtube TV + Hulu Live TV, because they're basically competing services. You pick one or the other. The Hulu (non live TV) service is basically a next-day VOD service for network content, and is much cheaper (<$10). But if you have Youtube TV, you don't even need that as you can DVR your network shows.


I don't know about @MikeDeTiger , but my issue has been that most of your arguments have seemed to come from the same standpoint as all the hit pieces I've seen on cord-cutting...

I.e. "Well, to replicate EVERYTHING I need from cable, it means I'm going to have to subscribe to these eighteen different streaming services, which is entirely confusing and will cost me tons of money. Why would I do that when cable is so perfect and does it all for me?"

The truth is that cord-cutting became a thing because the cable bundle started to grow to ridiculous costs and didn't satisfy consumers. Instead of asking "how do I replicate everything cable gives me", people started asking "what do I actually want and is there a better deal out there?"

Yes, it's marginally more work. You have to ask those crazy questions like "what do I actually want, need, and/or are willing to pay for?" And then you have to figure out "what service gives me those things that I want, need, and/or are willing to pay for?" In a lot of cases, people are realizing that they come out ahead by ditching cable for streaming.

I'm not saying it's the right solution for everyone. What I'm saying is that many of your arguments were easily-refuted tropes about how hard, confusing, and expensive it is to cut the cord. Whereas most peoples' experience doesn't bear that out--you don't see that many rushing back to cable, do you?

I've already stated three separate times that the streaming services you're offering up as solutions don't cover everything I want.  Therefore they are not viable solutions.  I'm not sure why you're not understanding this?

I'll certainly agree that it's not the right solution for everyone, because I can attest that it's not the right solution for me.  Again, not sure which part you're missing here?

We can ALL say, "If you drop X channel or Y service then you can use Z solution."  That's simple to see, it's not the problem. 

We could all completely drop all cable/streaming and watch only OTA for free.

We could all stop watching television completely and not have to pay the price of the television, wall-mounts, console furniture, cabling, antenna, electricity-- and they would be even less expensive.  

But telling me "using X hardware to access Y service gets you almost there" simply in't a solution.  And it's certainly not compelling when it doesn't cost enough less to convince me to switch. 

Anyway, as for hardware, I have Roku on multiple TVs and use it instead of renting hardware from Spectrum, since Spectrum has an app that works on Roku and also native to Samsung (which all of my SmartTVs are).  I really, REALLY like the Roku interface.  

Just understand that the ability to take a Roku on the road with you and view any channel you want anywhere in the country was NOT something the cable companies were just dying to provide... They did that to compete with streamers.

So although you may have made the determination that cable is better for you than streaming services, you're benefiting from the competition that those streaming services provided.

That's fine, but not to put too fine a point on it-- who cares why?  Market forces do market things.  

A single person like me has a great chance to limit the amount of content I pay for and save some money, if that is "cable TV or streaming"

folks with 3 or more people in the house with different tastes might as well have the 300+ channels and watch what they want

I have every channel and movie channel offered and I still have a Netflix subscription for my daughters.  I've not watched a minute of it.

I have 25 channels on my favorite list.  all the sports, the food network, and the locals.  I could easily do w/o the food network and get my locals with a digital antenna.  It's the sports networks that cost $$$, regardless of the source.

I don't think you're misunderstanding me or arguing with me....I think we agree that it's going to be situation specific....but a quick look a my particular situation makes it easy to see why I do what I do.

1)  Can I get the channels I want?  With most services, no.  With YouTubeTV, yes.  With satellite or cable, also yes.

2)  Does Netflix factor in?  No, I'd have it anyway, and even if I didn't want it, my wife and stepson "need" it, ergo, so do I.  Does Amazon factor in?  No, not only would I have Prime Video anyway, but also even if I watched zero Prime Video content, Amazon Prime is something we purchase/use outside the realm of entertainment.  Does Hulu factor in?  Sort of....cable/satellite/streaming service makes some of what I use Hulu for redundant, and while I'm starting to get into a couple Hulu originals, some of what I need it for would be negated by having a live tv source with the channels I want.   

3)  What does this stuff cost?

Previously, $75.19 for internet, it was over $100 for DirecTV when we had it, Spectrum wasn't any better, so I'm just going to call it an even hundred, give them a $15 discount for bundling (it wasn't much when last I checked), and say that gets me $150 for cable and internet bundled together with Spectrum.  $187.27 if you add back in Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.

Currently, $75.19 for internet, $53.11 for YouTubeTV, gets me 128.30/mo., almost $22 dollars cheaper than the alternative.  And it means that in the 7ish months of the year I don't watch TV I'm free to pay $75 less than being locked into TV provider contracts.  (Granted, I do watch TV shows, I just typically watch them after they're released on Netflix, Amazon, or Hulu.)

I forget what he told me, but I want to say what my friend in Austin said he's paying is somewhere in the vicinity of $75 for bundled cable and internet (a much faster internet speed than I get for $75, I might add).  If that's right, and I could get it, I probably would.  It'd largely be a wash because I wouldn't enjoy much of the greater value for the same price, but who knows, it might incline me to watch TV shows as they come out, like I used to do, instead of waiting for them on streaming services.  At least I'd have the option to watch recorded TV year-round if I felt like it.  My months with the streaming TV services says probably not, but when my time isn't being taken up with football, who knows.  

I expect all this to cycle and swing back the other direction, eventually.  Or at least it will if the cable and satellite companies intend to survive.  They're in big time crisis mode right now.  I'm in a comfort zone right now, but with Disney doing its thing and potentially taking ABC shows with it, the BBC making deals with BritBox that could ultimately take away some of my Prime content....the list really seems to go on and on with content providers that are looking at pulling their stuff from the streaming providers and going with their own subscription service.  At some point it will have to stop for me, either choosing to not watch certain shows or go back to something more streamlined.  We're not there yet, though.  

@utee94 Not trying to be condescending, nor am I trying to say one size fits all...

Heck, I have a vested interest in cable and satellite succeeding. The more DVRs they install, the more HDD they need, and the better for me.

But I see what's happening in the market, and it's changing. I'm not saying it's for everyone. But I also think misrepresenting it as incredibly complicated doesn't fit actual experience, given how many people are successfully doing it. 

Badgerfan also has expressed that currently cord-cutting doesn't really support his consumption behavior.  Why don't you cord cutting fanbois go bother HIM for a while?

Badger is OLD.  Of course it's too complicated for him   

btw, source content is a huge element that we've both touched on, and I think goes too much unconsidered in general conversations (not this one).  You hit a very important point earlier, that you don't think any more of the streaming service original shows than network/cable shows.  Consumption desires can't be overstated.  Re-reading my earlier posts, I've possibly made it sound like I never watch anything but football, which is not true.  I happen to like and watch quite a number of Amazon shows, a handful of Netflix shows, and a couple Hulu ones, a lot better than I like what cable channels have to offer.  Network TV...I don't even bother anymore.  I consider everything I've tried on those for the past several years so inferior I pretty much gave up on them.  So the time I do have to sit down and watch something, it's going to be from the streaming services first, most likely.  Since that may not be the case for you and others, my alternative doesn't necessarily make sense regardless of cost considerations.  I like a handful of shows from AMC, FX, SyFy, and BBCA, that's about it off the top of my head.  They all come out on Netflix, Prime, or Hulu eventually, so I can make do, since I'm just as happy watching the streaming originals.  

I know you know all this, I'm just detailing it in case anyone else considering this stuff is following along, trying to make any determinations.  I read the posts here for a while to follow the reviews and suggestions, etc. back before I switched.  If anybody is considering alternatives, a pretty good resource is The Streamable site where you can easily build your channel preferences and let it tell you what alternatives meet that or come closest, and the price.  Very handy, info stays pretty current.  With you zip entered they even track which local stations are available on which services in which market.  That's the number one thing that trips up streaming services imo, and I have to say, even on their own websites its not always easy to ascertain whether you'll be getting local stations where you live, and which ones.