Cool, thanks. I do have Prime so I could see all that through this Roku or whatever I pick?Not knowing any better, if Prime offered the channels you wanted, you could go ahead and get an Amazon Fire stick. But if your smart TV already has Amazon as an option, you may not need a stick at all.
Amazon video doesn't do live TV. It's like Netflix in that way.
Also, I was fishing through Amazon and I can't find where they offer much of anything in the way of network TV and live sports. Am I looking in the wrong places, or what?
bottom lineTrue dat but you don't have to have cable. Streaming packages (DirecTV Now, Sling, YouTube TV, etc) have deals with Disney (ABC, ESPN) and Fox that let you get those. I have DirecTV Now and I have more sports programming than I ever had with cable/satellite.
if you moved to Florida this fall, there's probably no way to watch all Badger games w/o paying the cable company
perhaps in a few years there will be a way without the Cable company, but the Big Ten and the Badgers are still going to get paid
ABC/ESPN are going to get paid
Interesting stuff to be sure.You can go either way. You want a solid, fast modem/router to go wireless and it works fine. We have more than a dozen devices connected to our wireless and we don't have any issues with speed. Connecting via ethernet is better still.
So, this Roku box thing is the way to go. Is that wireless? It says "Ethernet" on the listing. I suppose that wouldn't be a problem because I'm putting the new modem next to the main TV.
Just ordered the Roku box and two sticks. They will show up on Tuesday.Good luck. I'm always a little wary that unbundling things will bring savings, but man cable is forcing me to reassess (I have PSVue, which is mostly good, outside the delay and needing to get an old-school antenna for local stuff).
New Comcast internet modem came today (No choice but to use them for that component around here. AT&T is no gouda).
My brother will come Thursday and the cord to cable will be cut.
DirecTV Now is the solution for my channels.
I'll report back on how this goes. I hope it goes as planned.
I was pondering if it would be cheaper to find a sports bar and watch games on Saturday, but I don't want to sit in a crowded bar eating greasy food for hours.hah, my bar tab makes the cable bill look insignificant
I am going to get an antenna initially unless the cable in the condo is already live and "free". Then we'll add whatever we think we need. I'm told it is "basic cable" but I don't know what that includes, I'm sure ESPN is out but I only watch events on ESPN anyway.My in-laws just moved into a senior community and they have "basic cable" free and live. It definitely includes ESPN and all the normal cable channels you'd expect, plus locals.
I was pondering if it would be cheaper to find a sports bar and watch games on Saturday, but I don't want to sit in a crowded bar eating greasy food for hours.
hah, my bar tab makes the cable bill look insignificantYep, if I was going to spend 3+ hrs at a bar to watch games, it'd be cheaper to have cable...
and that's w/o the food
I don't eat out much.
Well, if "basic cable" includes ESPN, I'm probably good. Most of what else I watch is streaming from somewhere.Well it's essentially impossible to offer cable in a "bundled" plan to a community/condo/etc complex and not include ESPN, so I'm pretty sure you're good there. While individuals may prefer a non-ESPN option, group packages wouldn't be viable if that wasn't included.
Well it's essentially impossible to offer cable in a "bundled" plan to a community/condo/etc complex and not include ESPN, so I'm pretty sure you're good there. While individuals may prefer a non-ESPN option, group packages wouldn't be viable if that wasn't included.many CATV providers now offer a very basic lineup that includes around 30 crap channels including the locals
many CATV providers now offer a very basic lineup that includes around 30 crap channels including the localsUnderstood, but my guess is that's not what we're talking about here. Cincy said this:
no ESPN or BTN
Around $30/month cheaper than the usual 120 channel "basic" lineup with ESPN and BTN
"We apparently get basic cable "for free" (part of the HOA of course) and likely have no other option other than to upgrade with that cable system, but we get Internet "for free" also, so that brings in options."
I just cut the cord last week. Of all the choices - Amazon Fire, Apple TV, etc - I got Youtube TV. Why? ESPNs, MLBNetwork, B10 Network, SEC Network - all for $40/mo. Pretty cheap for your sports fix - it has the Fox Sports channels, too. I have a smart TV, but since Youtube TV is relatively younger than the others, it wasn't on my TV as an option, so yes, I had to get a $69 Roku stick. But that's a one-time cost.What is centurylink?
That, with Netflix and maybe Hulu, and you're good to go. If I want HBO, I'll have to get that separately.
As for internet, I had Cox internet, but only to keep my TV cost down. I didn't use it at all, but have Centurylink instead for $30/mo.
Oh, and on Youtube TV, you can choose what channels you want on your guide thing, you can record/DVR all you want, no extra cost. And they're adding local news channels all the time.
What is centurylink?Just a modem I think. Just plugged it in and started it.
Do they send a guy out to install it like a cable company, or do they just send you a modem with a sheet of instructions?
I don't much about Hulu, as it's not my account I have. I haven't used it yet. I know it's more shows than movies, but can you watch the shows live?Hulu has traditionally been a non-live streaming service more like a Netflix or Amazon. Its claim to fame was having most network shows, but not until the morning after they aired live. This service was IIRC $7.99/month. Netflix or Amazon would only get seasons of shows after they completed, although Amazon I think eventually got a "season pass" option that would get shows the day after they aired live but you were buying the shows individually.
Apparently Comcast will drop BTN in out of market regions. Reading the message carefully suggests it will be dropped in Iowa, Nebraska and New York.comcast isn't a presence in Iowa or Nebraska - so not part of the comcast market area
Some mixed news if Comcast has any presence in Iowa of Nebraska . Paging Fearless
...
comcast isn't a presence in Iowa or Nebraska - so not part of the comcast market areaThe 220+ with internet costs $190/month. I just paid my last bill.
looking at the Xfinity channel packages, you need the 220+ for $70/month or the 260+ for $85/month to get the BTN.
I've been thinking about DirectTV now as well... My issue is do I trust Spectrum internet enough. I have so much on wifi now, do I trust adding more?It's a good thought - the downside of internet only is when the internet goes down pretty much everything is down. I have Spectrum and it was extremely reliable for a long time, but lately has been a bit spotty.
I've been thinking about DirectTV now as well... My issue is do I trust Spectrum internet enough. I have so much on wifi now, do I trust adding more?Dude, run a Cat5 cable
Are you pleased so far?So far so good. Haven't even had a "blip" yet. Seems really solid.
The 220+ with internet costs $190/month. I just paid my last bill.
Lots and lots of fees and rental costs go on top of that $70/month. Internet is $30/month, but I'm sure I will get raised now that I'm not getting TV anymore. Probably $40/month.
The 220+ with internet costs $190/month. I just paid my last bill.
Lots and lots of fees and rental costs go on top of that $70/month. Internet is $30/month, but I'm sure I will get raised now that I'm not getting TV anymore. Probably $40/month.
The 220+ with internet costs $190/month. I just paid my last bill.In my area Spectrum cranks up the cost of "unbundled" internet-only to the point that cutting the cord becomes about a wash.
Lots and lots of fees and rental costs go on top of that $70/month. Internet is $30/month, but I'm sure I will get raised now that I'm not getting TV anymore. Probably $40/month.
Dude, run a Cat5 cableHow does that solve the issue? You still need an ISP. Am I missing something?
issues resolved
So far so good. Haven't even had a "blip" yet. Seems really solid.Sounds good. Right now DirectTV Now is doing a big promo and, in the past, a surge in customers causes some network congestion until they get it sorted out. I don't know if it has been mentioned, but AT&T is in the process of moving all DirecTV customers to DirecTV Now and will kill off the satellite service eventually.
How does that solve the issue? You still need an ISP. Am I missing something?
I've been thinking about DirectTV now as well... My issue is do I trust Spectrum internet enough. I have so much on wifi now, do I trust adding more?
this was to solve the overloaded WiFi issue
I have so much on wifi now, do I trust adding more?
How does that solve the issue? You still need an ISP. Am I missing something?this was to solve the overloaded WiFi issue
I chose Centurylink over Cox internet because it was explained to me that Cox runs in one line and splits it among their customers throughout each apartment building. Centurylink gives you your own line, so other people's usage doesn't affect you. But that's just for apartment living.it's not just apartments
this was to solve the overloaded WiFi issueGotcha, I didn't read it that way. The quote was about "trusting Spectrum Internet".
I have so much on wifi now, do I trust adding more?
Went to Comcast last evening and returned all my equipment. I'm now at $55/month for internet (up from $30 with the bundle). They offered me to keep basic cable and internet for $55/month - but the catch is you still have to pay sports and broadcast fees, and all the other fees for the fees and crap.I think I missed it, what are you using as your streaming device? Did you do the Amazon fire stick, or something else? As you're keeping tabs, would love to hear your (and everyone else's) opinions on the various hardware devices, as well as the streaming service they access with it. From various anecdotal accounts I've read, some services tend to work better with some hardware, and not as well with others. Makes sense, as the streaming services tend to provide app developer toolkits to the hardware manufacturers, which then receive varying levels of commitment (presumably based on other agreements between the various companies).
I declined and went internet only. I have the blast, which gives us 100MB/sec and all that. I guess that's good.
So, with internet and DirecTV Now I'm at $105/month (actually $80/month for 3 months due to the DirecTV Now promo).
I'll keep tabs on the stuff moving forward, but as of today I'm paying half of what I was paying.
Apparently if I buy my own modem I can save another $11/month in Comcast rental fees. I'm going to look into that.
buy your own trusted WiFi hardware and don't rely on the crap that the ISPs provide).this is all true - the vast majority of trouble calls are because of WiFi issues, not the connection of the modem
If you're overloading the capabilities of your WiFi network, whatever ISP you're using is pretty much irrelevant.
I think I missed it, what are you using as your streaming device? Did you do the Amazon fire stick, or something else? As you're keeping tabs, would love to hear your (and everyone else's) opinions on the various hardware devices, as well as the streaming service they access with it. From various anecdotal accounts I've read, some services tend to work better with some hardware, and not as well with others. Makes sense, as the streaming services tend to provide app developer toolkits to the hardware manufacturers, which then receive varying levels of commitment (presumably based on other agreements between the various companies).I've had AppleTV, Chromecast, Firestick, and a few Roku models. I've kept the Roku Ultra and a TV with built in Roku and given everything else away. My wife really hated the AppleTV remote and then they quit supporting Amazon Prime so that went away. Chromecast really relies on your phone as a remote and Google quit supporting Amazon Prime so those went. Amazon Firestick won't support a YouTube app (nor YouTube TV, I've heard) so that one is gone.
From my perspective, I've been pleased with the various streaming services (Amazon, WatchESPN, and Sprectrum App) using my Roku Express hardware over my Spectrum broadband internet. The Samsung SmartTV native apps are ok but somewhat less pleasing. And any time I'm forced to use the web browser through either of those hardware platforms, it's a fairly unpleasant User Experience.
I just checked my stuff. Speed is at 128 MB/sec and 26 MB/sec for download and upload. That seems really fast.that is VERY fast, you won't have any trouble streaming to multiple devices
I think I missed it, what are you using as your streaming device? Did you do the Amazon fire stick, or something else? As you're keeping tabs, would love to hear your (and everyone else's) opinions on the various hardware devices, as well as the streaming service they access with it. From various anecdotal accounts I've read, some services tend to work better with some hardware, and not as well with others. Makes sense, as the streaming services tend to provide app developer toolkits to the hardware manufacturers, which then receive varying levels of commitment (presumably based on other agreements between the various companies).I'm personally a fan of Roku. Part of this is personal prejudice but that I've heard backed up elsewhere, and that is this:
When I said do I trust putting more on wifi, I was talking about being 100% tied to Spectrum for my entertainment options. I wasn't intending on conversation to be about routers, but rather trust in Spectrum to stay up consistently and not to throttle my service (which I'm convinced they do..).Well, aren't you 100% tied to Spectrum for your entertainment options now? Aren't you getting your cable through Spectrum?
Well, aren't you 100% tied to Spectrum for your entertainment options now? Aren't you getting your cable through Spectrum?true, but RF CATV is more resilient than the higher frequencies required for cable modems. Sometimes it's simply old crap modems or the previously mentioned modem/routers with crap old wifi.
Well, aren't you 100% tied to Spectrum for your entertainment options now? Aren't you getting your cable through Spectrum?I have DirectTV.. satellite tv is useful at tailgates..
Heck, it's like some of the people who have a land line "for emergencies", without realizing that unlike the old days when phones were line-powered, their phone service is through their cable bundle and requires a modem. You lose electrical power, and that "emergency" phone line doesn't work any more.
I think in some ways your entertainment options today all flow through a single provider. In fact, diversifying through streaming might be better because as long as your internet is working, you can get around a Sling outage by watching Netflix, or Amazon, etc...
it has servo motors and electronic feedback controls so it can automatically orient itself on the correct satellites.that's cheating
I'm a bit late to the game, but I'll chime in. I have Hulu Live TV at $40/ month. That includes Regular Hulu, plus your typical cable channels, including BTN (a big reason that I got it). I am definitely happy with it.When you're watching live TV on Hulu, do you find a lot of buffering? I'm getting a lot of that, and never really had that problem with Sling.
hope the new car came with a spare tire ;)Yeah, that was a rather substantial motivation to make the change, along with having a smaller car in the city (it's a Golf GTI "Autobahn"). It is a pretty efficient package that handles well and has decent acceleration, and a clutch.
HOAs can be un-American, but I'm with Utee with respect to our own HOA. They can be a little finicky when it comes to certain convenants, and not fully understand how to remove snow (not a concern for Utee from what I know :)), but they are quite accountable around here.Same here. They get nit picky with the placement of basketball hoops, but that's my only gripe. We also have a pretty nice pool, and the HOA fee (covering anything) is cheaper than joining a swim club or putting one in, so I'm on board for that alone.
When you're watching live TV on Hulu, do you find a lot of buffering? I'm getting a lot of that, and never really had that problem with Sling.Occasionally, but not often. I do sometimes get a low resolution picture for a minute or two. Its annoying when its during a Penn State game, but I can live with it. Seems like it happens more often with sports, but it might be just that I notice it more.
I'm surprised how many are just full time product advertisements.you have no idea
I guess people watch that stuff?
you have no ideaYeah, given the plethora of channels that are 100% advertising, there must be a substantial audience.
An HOA obviously is just a small local group with some common purpose. We live in a condo now, so an HOA is pretty much required for obvious reasons as we have a lot of shared property. like public lands
I don't see any connection to the usual concept of "Big Government" as something distant and expensive and "big" in which one has little voice. I'd also note that IMHO both parties like "Big Government" since they derive their power therefrom. They just mouth off some differences as to what should be BIG and what should be LITTLE. when you first move in, you don't have much of a say
To the extent government is a collection of people with some common purpose, an HOA is an example, but obviously at a very small level. a country is just a collection of states, cities, and towns
Yeah, given the plethora of channels that are 100% advertising, there must be a substantial audience.the good thing is that those channels don't usually charge a fee per subscriber to the cable company
We probably would have to pass through actual anarchy before getting to it.this could happen
I lean to thinking that those "Russian bots" were really not that effective. The ones I have seen were rather amateurish, and the folks who passed them on using SM were already going to vote X or Y. Did they influence any of the undecideds?I tend to agree with this. I don't know a single person that was undecided. Everyone I know voted based on platform and that had nothing to do with anything they might have heard specifically about one candidate or the other.
Perhaps so, but there was a background of billions being spent by both campaigns. How did the undecided decide? Did some of them hear about some child sex ring in a pizza parlor run by the Clintons and decide on that basis?
If so, their decision was going to be decided by rather "tenuous" means anyway.
I think it would be interesting to interview folks who decided very late as to what influenced their choice.
I tend to agree with this. I don't know a single person that was undecided. Everyone I know voted based on platform and that had nothing to do with anything they might have heard specifically about one candidate or the other.Same here, but my circle of friends/associates does not include everyone.
needed as a part of registration for access to the internet
Maybe an aptitude test is needed as a part of voter registration... Ha!
I don't want to start a whole big thing here, but I can't help but connect who I guess are conservative-leaning people defending HOAs...aren't HOAs just a smaller version of paying higher taxes for a big gov't? Am I off on that?
Wouldn't a conservative person who wants access to a pool use his own money and install a pool into his own back yard? Not relying on the HOA fees being 'pooled' together for a community pool? Can I say it seems hypocritical without seeming like I'm attacking anyone and thus, no one needing to get defensive?
I'm just sharing ideas that have occurred to me. Not trying to insult or be a jerk or offend.
Do we have any anarchists here?
a behemoth that becomes and entity unto itself and is driven by its own goals and needs and is no longer accountable.this is what we have
I lean to thinking that those "Russian bots" were really not that effective. The ones I have seen were rather amateurish, and the folks who passed them on using SM were already going to vote X or Y. Did they influence any of the undecideds?The Russian bots wouldn't exist if they weren't effective. The time and money spent on them would be put to some other, more effective use.
Perhaps so, but there was a background of billions being spent by both campaigns. How did the undecided decide? Did some of them hear about some child sex ring in a pizza parlor run by the Clintons and decide on that basis?
If so, their decision was going to be decided by rather "tenuous" means anyway.
I think it would be interesting to interview folks who decided very late as to what influenced their choice.
Well, there are a lot of things to unpack in this... "Conservatives" as a general rule are not opposed to government. They are very concerned about "big government", i.e. a behemoth that becomes and entity unto itself and is driven by its own goals and needs and is no longer accountable.
When you talk about government, there are two basic methods by which people can influence government, "Voice" and "Exit". Voice is basically democracy, how much control each of us has through our speech and our votes. Exit is our ability to leave and find a government more amenable to our preferences. I.e. every time Badge talks about how horrible Illinois is and how he's planning to leave for a better-run state, that's exit--he knows he can't change Illinois, so he might as well go somewhere better.
Well, there are a lot of things to unpack in this... "Conservatives" as a general rule are not opposed to government. They are very concerned about "big government", i.e. a behemoth that becomes and entity unto itself and is driven by its own goals and needs and is no longer accountable.I haven't dealt with HOAs personally, but my friends that have - theirs are like this. They wouldn't let my friend paint her front door the color she wanted. WTF is that???
When you talk about government, there are two basic methods by which people can influence government, "Voice" and "Exit". Voice is basically democracy, how much control each of us has through our speech and our votes. Exit is our ability to leave and find a government more amenable to our preferences. I.e. every time Badge talks about how horrible Illinois is and how he's planning to leave for a better-run state, that's exit--he knows he can't change Illinois, so he might as well go somewhere better.
The smaller the unit of government is, the more your voice carries and the lower the costs of exit.
An HOA is generally small enough that there is a high responsiveness to voice and a relatively easy exit. Now, that doesn't mean they're all good. In fact, a lot of them are terrible, because the people who tend to be attracted to them are the ones who are MOST interested in controlling others' lives. It's REALLY easy to go from "we want to maintain property values so nobody is allowed to put their rusted pickup truck up on blocks in the front yard" to "that's the wrong shade of beige, Susan, so you need to repaint your house or we'll fine you". But in theory, a well-run HOA is both responsive to the residents of the community while not oppressive to them, and as such it protects the interests of the entire community from bad apples.
yup, don't like HOAs, don't move thereNo, they cannot get any keys at all. They report to the front desk, sign in and we get a call to ensure they are OK and we're home, then they get elevator access and knock on our door.
Cincy, regarding security, hopefully keys aren't simply handed out to plumbers and other maintenance contractors.
bwar put it perfectly above.Actually as a libertarian, I rail against any entity that wants to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property whether it is inefficient or efficient, whether it is ineffectual or effectual.
Through that lens, then, an HOA is actually well-suited for many conservatives and libertarians, because it is in fact the opposite of the large, inefficient, and ineffectual Federal government they rail against.
Just about everywhere has zoning ordinances. Maybe some places out west don't, but even there you have mineral and water rights, or not. I doubt any of us own land "free and clear" on which we can do as we wish.Truth is we do not own any land period. Even if you don't have a mortgage, if you don't pay your feudal lord his annual serfdoom fee (property taxes), he will kick you off his land.
And course there is the EPA as well.
I have found that HOAs can attract the domineering power hungry types. We were lucky not to have any in our subdivision, which had an annual HOA of $175 to cover the landscaping needs in the common areas. They had problems getting anyone to "run" for the committee. I never did, didn't care.
I haven't dealt with HOAs personally, but my friends that have - theirs are like this. They wouldn't let my friend paint her front door the color she wanted. WTF is that???Like I said, it can be a mix. When I lived in Atlanta (Marietta, actually), we had a pretty chill HOA. But when elections came around, it was well-understood that one guy who kept trying to get on the board was to be voted against at all costs. He was the domineering power hungry type.
Actually as a libertarian, I rail against any entity that wants to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property whether it is inefficient or efficient, whether it is ineffectual or effectual.Hey, as a libertarian, I'm with you. Because I'm responsible and well-behaved, and I would never do something crazy like put a pickup truck up on blocks in my front yard. So if I want to do some landscaping, etc, I have taste [or more accurately my wife does] and I guarantee it will improve the aesthetic of the neighborhood.
Like I said, it can be a mix. When I lived in Atlanta (Marietta, actually), we had a pretty chill HOA. But when elections came around, it was well-understood that one guy who kept trying to get on the board was to be voted against at all costs. He was the domineering power hungry type.same thing in a small town city council
HOA communities in general have rules, including at times how you can change the outside appearance of your dwelling. Otherwise, someone could paint their door orange and reduce property values, or fail to mow their lawn, or put up an above ground pool. If you don't like the restrictions, don't move there.You've completely missed the connection I was making. In no way was I suggesting tenants or renters or homeowners, nor real estate agents were conservatives. I'm not sure how you got that from what I've said.
I don't see any overlap at all with whatever conservatives want, or liberals want. We had an HOA where I lived and they were unobtrusive in the main, and the one here is the same, though more evident because it's a condo. I've noticed quite a few of our neighbors are married men, to other men, so it is probable they are leaning liberal. Our real estate agent is gay and we got friendly enough to broach the topic and he is very liberal as well. He's also a tremendously nice guy who was very professional and competent. We probably also have some conservatives around somewhere. Fine with me, I enjoy diversity of opinion.
I'm sure SOME conservatives prefer to live as independently as possible out in the wilderness, but like liberals, they are not somehow all the same in every respect, at all. A buddy of mine was like that, wanted to live on 10 acres with no zoning around him, but in fact, he is about as liberal as anyone can be (from GB originally). He hates guns and wants them banned, for example. He wants universal health care, though he says the British system is a mess.
Some people actually have some views that are liberal and some that are conservative all at the same time. Others find their political positions as being whatever their party defines them to be, down the line. That has the benefit of eliminating any thinking process of course. I would bet the group here is mostly the former type, able to hold divergent views on various topics because the posters here show evidence of critical thinking skills in nearly every case, I can't think of an exception right now.
I'm against all over generalizations.
same thing in a small town city councilSure, and that's why it's a choice. A level of choice above and beyond the basics, and that you are willing to and able to pay for.
I guess an HOA might be needed if the standards of the city are not high enuff or not enforced
yup, don't like HOAs, don't move thereI didn't introduce the race thing, but this is exactly what they said about the cost of the suburbs. It's vaguely judging people based on income. More specifically, it's uglier than that.
same thing in a small town city councilThis is the situation where I live. I'm in a small HOA, 12 homes, with 11 good neighbors and a nut job. The majority of the homeowners are elderly widows. The HOA takes care of all the exterior maintenance including painting, roofs, yards, etc. The one old guy is a horder so his home and garage are full of trash and he keeps trying to put more of it outside his home. He even buys old SUVs and vans just to put more trash in. He is up to 6 cars and 2 motorcycles. He dug a 10' square by 9' deep hole in his back yard with the idea he was going to build a "bunker" in it to store more trash. He removed all the grass from his lot 5 times, hauled in 5 dump truck loads of dirt and planted melons all over his property. The city would do nothing to rein him in.
I guess an HOA might be needed if the standards of the city are not high enuff or not enforced
I will be voluntarily moving to a town in Florida, and more particularly to a part of town that has a strong and healthy HOA. It's not about keeping people out. It's about keeping the place nice. Of course, it is more money, but in the end, it's worth it.When I moved her in 2016 Badge, I had about 20 homes scoped out with my realtor, to do an intense 3 day house shopping blitz. At least a dozen of them were in gated communities with HOAs.
Do I wish a few of the neighbors were a tad more aware of their upkeep? Yes, but it’s worth it to me.Ed Zachery.
HOAs seem to be more a characteristic of residential areas with higher housing prices. These areas can have amenities like pools and tennis courts, or at least some common landscaping areas, that require funding.I grew up in Austin and the city has many public pools and a good bit of parkland. As you might expect in a city metro area of over a million people, it all gets very crowded at the most desirable times.
I grew up in residential areas that had none of the above. I'm sure one can avoid HOAs easily enough and rely on local zoning ordinances unless one wants to live in a half million dollar house, and up.
With condos, it's inherent of course.
My TV went out for a few minutes today. It is drizzling rain, not hard at all. I heard that was an issue with DirecTV at times.it's not about the precipitation
I've never used Amazon Firestick or AppleTV so I can't really compare. A friend had the Chrome thing and its interface kind of sucked.I've played a little with the Amazon, and we have an AppleTV on the second TV, and I agree that the Roku is much better. I hate the remote on the AppleTV, b/c like typical Apple they try to go with the "lack of buttons" approach when sometimes buttons are freaking useful. I've never tried a Chromecast.
So... anyway... how bout them HOAs?So, an HOA can't keep you from putting up a satellite dish. A lot of them will scream, and cajole, and fight homeowners that try. But they can't stop you.
So, an HOA can't keep you from putting up a satellite dish. A lot of them will scream, and cajole, and fight homeowners that try. But they can't stop you.They can if it is in the covenants. In my HOA, the roofs are covered under the maintenance and the structures are covered under a blanket insurance policy so nothing can be attached there. Homeowners who want a satellite dish have them mounted in the yard.
They can if it is in the covenants. In my HOA, the roofs are covered under the maintenance and the structures are covered under a blanket insurance policy so nothing can be attached there. Homeowners who want a satellite dish have them mounted in the yard.When it's community property, that is true. I.e. in a condo or townhome you can't attach it to anything you don't own.
hopefully the internet connection is not through the satelliteThe internet has gone down when TV was up and vice versa.
hopefully a fiber connection to a DSLAM in the basement
1.21 gigawatts
Maybe in Texas, that isn't much, but around here, whoa.
With all the fiber AT&T is going to be putting in, soon the dish will be obsolete.I don't know about Dish's plans but AT&T intends to move all TV customers to DirectTV Now streaming. If anyone has an AT&T unlimited wireless plan, they get a cost break on DirecTV Now and streaming doesn't apply to the data caps.
I don't know about Dish's plans but AT&T intends to move all TV customers to DirectTV Now streaming. If anyone has an AT&T unlimited wireless plan, they get a cost break on DirecTV Now and streaming doesn't apply to the data caps.I think Dish will be out of business before it's all said and done.
With all the fiber AT&T is going to be putting in, soon the dish will be obsolete.They don't want to lay fiber any more. They want to go wireless. It's all about the 5G rollout.
The internet has gone down when TV was up and vice versa.40 Mbps (Megabits per second) is plenty of downstream for any HD streaming you and your wife would be enjoying, plus most any other internet activity.
It seems to be fairly fast, they claimed 40 something somethings.
Megawhatevers per Joule.
I don't know about Dish's plans but AT&T intends to move all TV customers to DirectTV Now streaming. If anyone has an AT&T unlimited wireless plan, they get a cost break on DirecTV Now and streaming doesn't apply to the data caps.Dish also has SlingTV. They recognized early on that they (like DirecTV) have a "city problem", in that people in the city have a lot of options, and they also have good broadband speeds. So they can't compete as easily in the cities with pure satellite, and decided that they could lure customers away from cable using streaming.
I think Dish will be out of business before it's all said and done.Dish is a very interesting company. I can only speak in broad terms about them (i.e. things they've said in their investor calls, etc) as I work closely with them (supporting them on HDDs in their DVR boxes) and have more of a view into what they're doing than most people.
My new contract calls for layout of up to 500 miles of fiber in the Chicago area. I think they want to lay fiber and I think I'll take their money. Just like I took their money 4-6 years ago surveying all of the cell towers they sold off.I should point out, it's not that they don't want to lay fiber. My bet is that they don't want to lay fiber *to the house*. The "last mile", so to speak, is where wireless makes the most sense to take over.
:72:
My TV went out for a few minutes today. It is drizzling rain, not hard at all. I heard that was an issue with DirecTV at times.Yes.. it is. So far, we've avoided both DirecTV and our Internet out at the same time.
I know I just landed a contract with AT&T to help with layout and easements for new fiber lines, and that will change the game. I'd drop Comcast in a heartbeat if there were a viable AT&T option, and it will be - hopefully before I leave this state.fiber is the future for sure. Just very expensive. I'm in the middle of a 3 phase project to place fiber to 2500 customers - budget is $20 million.
They don't want to lay fiber any more. They want to go wireless. It's all about the 5G rollout.5G is a great improvement in wireless, but simply can't match that fiber connection to the premise. Not in performance or reliability.
5G is a great improvement in wireless, but simply can't match that fiber connection to the premise. Not in performance or reliability.True, and to a business customer, I think it'll have a play. To a residence? Not as important.
if you're using "cable alternatives" the fiber optic cable is going to be the better option than 5GRight now AT&T only has DSL to my neighborhood, with 3 Mbps download rates. Basically the ONLY broadband option I've got is Cable [Cox].
for folks today that aren't streaming the LTE or 4G wireless can be a good option - if streaming the data caps and rates kill you
unless plans and pricing change drastically for 5G in the future, I assume the fiber cable will be the better option
probably a good replacement for DSL....
What we're talking about is whether 5G has the bandwidth to be a realistic "wireless to the home" to replace coax cable or DSL. I agree that anyplace that already has fiber in the ground, there's no reason to change.
But to the point, fiber is DEFINITELY needed to support the additional bandwidth that 5G makes available:yes, I do fiber backhaul for cell towers running LTE/4G today. So far the most VRZ and AT&T have asked for is a 500Meg connection, but I'm sure it will be a gig in the near future.
http://www.ciena.com/insights/articles/5G-wireless-needs-fiber-and-lots-of-it_prx.html
probably a good replacement for DSL....Bandwidth is always shared. If a cable company has 100 houses in a neighborhood hooked up to one "trunk", and each of those houses has 300 Mbps service, I guarantee you that the cable company doesn't have the bandwidth to supply 30 Gbps to that neighborhood at one time. They're all going to thin-provision the bandwidth rather than overbuild their infrastructure.
yes, the problem with 5G or 4G or LTE is that they are "shared" bandwidth
regardless of device, smart phone or 5G modem, when 1,000 of them connect to the same tower/antenna it taxes the system. yes, 5G has been tested at Gig speeds, but that won't hold up when the entire neighborhood is connected
the reason for high prices and data caps are to limit user's bandwidth - they don't want you streaming Netflix
with my Active E fiber network I can assure each and every household a synchronous 1 gig connection. by changing out electronics in the future 10 gig is possible.
absolutely
It's all a question of how much they thin provision their service. That becomes an economic question between how much to build vs how much customer pain is "acceptable" if they can't all download bittorrent at maximum throughput at once.
But DirecTV Now is also losing money, thanks to the high cost of programmingThat was mentioned in that article, but not in their linked article. I did a quick google-fu and found one analyst who claims they're losing money, but I didn't see any corroboration in that where there was a quote from an AT&T representative or a financial statement that had line items suggesting it.
http://bgr.com/2018/05/17/att-streaming-directv-now-vs-satellite-cost/ (http://bgr.com/2018/05/17/att-streaming-directv-now-vs-satellite-cost/)
Bandwidth is always shared. If a cable company has 100 houses in a neighborhood hooked up to one "trunk", and each of those houses has 300 Mbps service, I guarantee you that the cable company doesn't have the bandwidth to supply 30 Gbps to that neighborhood at one time. They're all going to thin-provision the bandwidth rather than overbuild their infrastructure.Isn't overbuilding their infrastructure precisely what they should do? Technology is obviously continuously advancing - it's only a matter of time before what they've settled on is no longer going to be good enough.
Well the most immediate answer, is that building double their current capacity needs, is extremely expensive, and pretty much impossible to show your investors/shareholders a desirable ROI within an acceptable time period. Building incremental bandwidth with a perceived acceptable short term ROI is the only way any capital expenditures are going to be justified/approved.Seems awfully short-sided.
I think a distinction needs to be made between 5g fixed wireless and 5g mobile as the fixed wireless (FWA) is intended provide broadband to homes rather than a wide, roaming, area. FWA small cell sites can be installed on light or power poles, rooftops, etc. which make it potentially attractive in areas where installing Fiber To The Home (FTTH) is difficult.the mesh and small cell technologies have been deployed by many municipalities and other competitors for a decade or so with limited success
Does it?Acting with the next quarterly report in mind is fine if you realize the graph can't go up forever. If the future costs are inevitable AND going to replace what you're spending money on now.......why the hell do the job twice at greater cost, just because it's spread out?
While corporate shareholders are notoriously short-sighted, as a GM I'm not about to sign up my org for anything without a clearly demonstrable ROI.
A writer I like who goes deep on this said YouTube TV is now the clear king on the sports front FWIW.Can you stream it on a Firestick?
Comcast Xfinity Drops BTN
|
But there are many regions, especially in the Midwest with Comcast as the only realistic source of internet.It's not even just rural areas. Where I live, I have two options. Cox internet through cable with realistic speeds, or AT&T DSL with a 3 Mbps download rate.
Has this been a convention for a long time -- throttling speeds after a customer accumulates a certain amount of data use (e.g., 25GB/mo)?Unlimited data doesn't feel unlimited in my experience. It's not that we get shut off, but rather, things really slow down or we have 2-3 min shut downs when in heavy use.
If so, and that "if so" needs some convincing first, then I admit my complaint isn't about net neutrality but about the fact that "unlimited data" was ever defined as equivalent to "25GB super fast, and then more, but super slow."
Has this been a convention for a long time -- throttling speeds after a customer accumulates a certain amount of data use (e.g., 25GB/mo)?yes, Verizon wireless, for example, has been doing this since they offered an "unlimited" plan. Sprint and AT&T were way ahead of Verizon here. wireline companies have had "data caps" for years.
I'm now concerned that our dish will lose signal on a Saturday.no option from your landlord to subscribe to service from the local CATV provider?
I guess I could run down to the restaurant next door, but they may have dish also.
LOS happens nearly every time is rains or is very cloudy.
Well, that, and I can't realistically get single games/programs a la carte just yet. The infrastructure still isn't built to support it, but it gets closer every day.
I do find myself laughing at some of my friends/family, generally younger ones, that tell me about how they've cut the cord. And then they tell me about the last season of Game of Thrones, or that ESPN football game they watched last week. I ask them "how" if they cut the cord, and they tell me things like, "Oh I used my mom and dad's login for HBOGo" or "my buddy lets me use his WatchESPN login info."
They have no idea that they didn't actually cut the cord, instead they're just stealing cable. Whatever...
It's not convenience for me. I ditched cable (satellite, actually) because I deem them too dang expensive for the use I get out of them, and because I don't like the contracts. Me and Mrs. DeTiger basically only use live TV during football season and the odd tennis tournament for her. When the SuperBowl is done....bye. Can't do it with cable and it's far less expensive for the months we do have it cut on anyway.
The technology is not perfect, there are some conveniences in the user experience that you're missing with traditional services, but I've used Hulu Live TV and YouTube TV so far, and both are still preferable to what we were doing previously. YouTube in particular even has some advantages over cable/satellite that I enjoy. i.e., it has technology that knows when live games are still going so I don't have to worry about extending my recording 1 hour, 1.5 hours, etc. It knows when there are delays, and things are moved temporarily to other channels, so it starts itself and stops when and where it's supposed to. And my fave.....click one button and record every college football game on every channel? Yes please. Unlimited DVR, so what do I care?
It's not convenience for me. I ditched cable (satellite, actually) because I deem them too dang expensive for the use I get out of them, and because I don't like the contracts. Me and Mrs. DeTiger basically only use live TV during football season and the odd tennis tournament for her. When the SuperBowl is done....bye. Can't do it with cable and it's far less expensive for the months we do have it cut on anyway.Agree 100%.
The technology is not perfect, there are some conveniences in the user experience that you're missing with traditional services, but I've used Hulu Live TV and YouTube TV so far, and both are still preferable to what we were doing previously. YouTube in particular even has some advantages over cable/satellite that I enjoy. i.e., it has technology that knows when live games are still going so I don't have to worry about extending my recording 1 hour, 1.5 hours, etc. It knows when there are delays, and things are moved temporarily to other channels, so it starts itself and stops when and where it's supposed to. And my fave.....click one button and record every college football game on every channel? Yes please. Unlimited DVR, so what do I care?
But you CAN get that stuff by cutting the cord, right? You can definitely get HBOGo a la carte on most platforms, and while for the last 12 years you've needed credentials from another provider for ESPN, can't you once again pay ESPN for a service to get games? I thought that's what they've been trying to tell me on the app since it updated and they did away with WatchESPN. Admittedly I haven't paid attention to it because I just use my provider credentials if I need the ESPN app.I think ESPN is SO tied to the cable / satellite / live streaming TV providers that they know offering a standalone service might cause cable / satellite / live streaming to put them on sports tiers and crater their business model.
But you CAN get that stuff by cutting the cord, right? You can definitely get HBOGo a la carte on most platforms, and while for the last 12 years you've needed credentials from another provider for ESPN, can't you once again pay ESPN for a service to get games? I thought that's what they've been trying to tell me on the app since it updated and they did away with WatchESPN. Admittedly I haven't paid attention to it because I just use my provider credentials if I need the ESPN app.
The infrastructure is there for single games/programs a la carte.I'm including current business models and contracts as part of the infrastructure. I didn't specify technological infrastructure. ;)
Especially over the top of the internet
It's also easily done on IPTV systems.
The Big Ten and SEC don't want folks just buying one game a week
I'm no anarchist, but I'd love to go back to What Ben Franklin said he gave us, which was a government by the people and for the people.<A year and a half later, but I'm a historian.>
Yes but those are all still subscriptions which is what the article was lamenting. I haven't found a single subscription that covers everything my cable provider does, so instead you end up cobbling together a Frankenservice. Some folks are fine with it, generally younger, more mobile, more tech-savvy customers. Older folks like my parents could never navigate their way through all of the various streaming/subscription services, it would completely overwhelm them. They're willing to pay more, for the convenience of Spectrum or AT&T ow whomever, aggregating all of those channels/services and paying one monthly fee to one provider for it.It's true that there isn't one service that covers everything your cable provider does, but then again I'll bet you don't actually use everything your cable provider offers.
I'm somewhere in the middle, I know how to do it so I COULD spend all the time to cobble together different subscriber services, and save a few bucks, but honestly it doesn't end up being a whole lot of savings. The moment I unbundle my internet service from my cable TV package, the internet service fee increases to the point where adding in just one streaming service on top of it, comes out to about the same as I'd pay otherwise.
It's true that there isn't one service that covers everything your cable provider does, but then again I'll bet you don't actually use everything your cable provider offers.I looked at it about a year ago and none of them covered everything my household watches. So it was a no-go. And the savings from moving off Spectrum (Time Warner) ISP+cable to only ISP+streaming wasn't even as much as yours. So for me it was a pretty easy decision to simply stay where I was. They've priced it that way for exactly this reason, obviously.
The newer live services (Hulu Live TV, Youtube TV) pretty much cover everything your cable provider does though. If you want live TV, they're pretty good and a lot cheaper than cable / satellite. And with smart TV's, it's not even complicated.
Yes, internet is more expensive without bundling. But the TV savings more than make up for it.
If you can get ESPN separately that's news to me. Regardless, my point stands that these proud cord-cutters really aren't doing that. They're just stealing.Of course, most cable subscribers already have Netflix. They have ~60M subscribers, and that's not ALL cord-cutters. A lot of cable subscribers pay for HBO on top of base cable. So going from base cable + Netflix + HBO to cord-cutting + Netflix + HBO is still a net savings.
To my earlier point, once you start adding in all of the various networks/services on top of your ISP-- if you're actually paying for them and not stealing them-- then it's not really the incredible savings that a lot of people believe it will be.
In the above statement I'm including things like HBO. One can always say, "well I don't need HBO and won't pay for it and therefore my cord-cutting is providing me savings" which is totally fine. We can all go a step further and simply pull down live network OTA television and not pay a cent. And you can go even further, and say that you don't need television at all and then you don't even have the purchase price of a television and an OTA antenna to account for in your entertainment budget. We'd likely all be a lot better off if we did that, and went outside and threw the football instead of watching someone else throw the football on TV. But that's really another discussion entirely.
Of course, most cable subscribers already have Netflix. They have ~60M subscribers, and that's not ALL cord-cutters. A lot of cable subscribers pay for HBO on top of base cable. So going from base cable + Netflix + HBO to cord-cutting + Netflix + HBO is still a net savings.
And yes, if Sling--which doesn't have locals--had BTN, I'd be using my antenna for locals. I usually use it over the Hulu Live TV version for NFL or NCAA games on local networks because the picture quality is better.
But yes, you can't get ESPN separately. But the cost of Sling ($20/mo) is low enough that if you're looking for JUST ESPN, it's not that far off from what ESPN would likely charge for a standalone service. I could easily see ESPN charging $15/mo and people paying it.
I looked at it about a year ago and none of them covered everything my household watches. So it was a no-go. And the savings from moving off Spectrum (Time Warner) ISP+cable to only ISP+streaming wasn't even as much as yours. So for me it was a pretty easy decision to simply stay where I was. They've priced it that way for exactly this reason, obviously.Ahh, then you watch some different things than I do.
Now, I could certainly tell the family, "We're changing to save money and we're going to have to give up some of the TV." That's a legitimate stand to take.
But it's not the same as saying "there is one streaming service that covers everything my family currently consumes from the cable offerings"-- which is not a true statement.
Or at least, it wasn't when I looked at it a year ago.
Ahh, then you watch some different things than I do.I’ve found YouTube tv to be very good. These are my only two complaints:
Basically my requirements were:
- ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU
- BTN
- Food Network
- FS1/FS2/CBSSN/etc were nice to have, but not hard requirements (Hulu Live TV and Youtube TV have these)
- Bravo for Top Chef was a nice to have, but not hard requirement (Hulu Live TV and Youtube TV have these)
Anything beyond that is just gravy. I'm more likely to watch original content on Netflix these days, because so much of it is better than what I get on cable anyway.
Right, and now you're cobbling together the Frankenservice that is annoying and a non-starter for a lot of people. I'm an electircal and computer engineer and even for me, the bother of monitoring everything across multiple streaming services plus my ISP just isn't worth a few bucks more per month.I think you're overstating the complexity.
I think you're overstating the complexity.
When I first did it [married to my first wife], she was more than capable of figuring it out. And she's not technical in ANY way. Although she did go back to cable after the divorce. But she's a spendthrift...
My new wife, when I met her, was a cable subscriber. She switched to streaming while we were dating before she moved in, and had no problem with it. And now that we live together, she has no problem working it here.
My kids figured it out quickly. Even to the point where I was pulling into the driveway with them one day after they'd been at their mom's house and my son said "ahh, finally we're back to Roku TV, instead of that stupid 'channel' TV at mom's house."
It's honestly quite easy. Not that I'd ask my 75 year old parents to do it, but it's not like it's rocket science.
@MikeDeTiger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1588)
Couple things--
1) To break it down economically, appropriately, I have to call out the cost of the internet service and I have to do it separately-- because it changes dramatically depending on whether or not it's bundled with the cable TV. It's something like $35 bundled. That jumps to $90-something unbundled. Which makes the economics not nearly as much of a no-brainer.
2) Agree on the inclusion of Netflix and Amazon Prime in the litany, those shouldn't count toward the total as I'd have them regardless. Rather, it's the stacking of the "television-based" streaming services that I don't like-- your example of YouTubeTV + Hulu is problematic for me. And of course, neither solves my LHN issue anyway.
I get it that in some cases, for some people, cutting to ISP-only and hooking up with one or more streaming services is a legitimate solution. I'm just pointing out that it's not a solution that works for everyone, supported by the bit of evidence that it does not currently work for me, for at least two different reasons.
<A year and a half later, but I'm a historian.>Well, sure. A republic, by definition, is by the people, for the people.
Actually, Badge, that's Lincoln's formulation.
What Franklin purportedly said that he and his fellow framers were giving us was "A republic, if you can keep it."
As for the costs of what I want in a service, and efficiencies?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.
I'm back to cable. It's the same money, at the end of the day, and only one bill. I still use Roku, because I can take it anywhere (my boat) and log into any channel I want using my Xfinity login. There is not a football game or anything else, that I have to miss when I'm not at home.
I'm taking the Roku to Florida next week.
@MikeDeTiger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1588) 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 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1588) , 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?
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.That's fine, but not to put too fine a point on it-- who cares why? Market forces do market things.
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.
@MikeDeTiger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1588)
Couple things--
1) To break it down economically, appropriately, I have to call out the cost of the internet service and I have to do it separately-- because it changes dramatically depending on whether or not it's bundled with the cable TV. It's something like $35 bundled. That jumps to $90-something unbundled. Which makes the economics not nearly as much of a no-brainer.
2) Agree on the inclusion of Netflix and Amazon Prime in the litany, those shouldn't count toward the total as I'd have them regardless. Rather, it's the stacking of the "television-based" streaming services that I don't like-- your example of YouTubeTV + Hulu is problematic for me. And of course, neither solves my LHN issue anyway.
I get it that in some cases, for some people, cutting to ISP-only and hooking up with one or more streaming services is a legitimate solution. I'm just pointing out that it's not a solution that works for everyone, supported by the bit of evidence that it does not currently work for me, for at least two different reasons.
And I'm sure my dad could handle it, but since I'm his automatic IT desk, I don't really want to become involved troubleshooting his ISP and/or streaming services every time my mom switches on the TV and simply wants to watch Wheel of Fortune. So there ain't no way, no how I'm going to recommend it to him.
Well, sure. A republic, by definition, is by the people, for the people.Well, there's at least a shade of difference between publica ("state" or "public") and populus ("people").
I'm beginning to question if we* can, in fact, keep it.
* I probably won't see it fall apart. But my kids and theirs? Could happen.
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? :)
Pffft. I know I'm old. I've forgotten more shit than you'll ever know, whippersnapper.
Get off my lawn.
Badger is OLD. Of course it's too complicated for him :86:Yeah, outside of Food Network [most of which is basically background just to watch "something"] and Top Chef on Bravo, I mostly just watch college football, NFL football, and college basketball from "cable".
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.
My experience with DirectV has been mostly good.Yeah, but how about DirecTV Now?
Netflix has some good originals, but at the moment its primary draw for me is its distribution of previously aired content from other sources. Those offerings continue to dwindle, and I'm uncertain as to whether or not I want to pay almost $14 strictly for Netflix originals, when the time comes. It'd probably be a situation where I cut it on during months we plan to be watching something we want to, and cut it off the rest of the time.I've noticed that the big things in the news has been the rights to previously aired shows... I think it was The Office, then Friends, Seinfeld, and now apparently there's some mega-deal for the previous South Park seasons. There are absolutely BLOCKBUSTER deals being made for these rights.
Dunno. Don't have a choice here.Yes, you can drop your dish or cable and get DirecTV Now, which is a streaming service through your internet. But, I suspect you wouldn't care for it. I know I didn't.
Internet here is decent also.
There's a difference in "previously aired content" and "things I have seen before."True... I also haven't watched Breaking Bad, and that might be on the list to go back and binge from the start.
For example, I missed Breaking Bad while it was on the air. Netflix had it, I watched it, that had value for me, a couple years after it was off the air. They have the first two seasons of Outlander, which I've never seen because I've never had Starz. There's a lot of other examples. There are very few things I've watched before I'm inclined to go through again, but the number of things that have already run which I haven't seen is pretty significant.
I forgot that I no longer have a lawn. But get off it anyway.How about get off my I-cloud
I've noticed that the big things in the news has been the rights to previously aired shows... I think it was The Office, then Friends, Seinfeld, and now apparently there's some mega-deal for the previous South Park seasons.Never - ever watched FRIENDS - the most inflated,over rated,mindless crap ever foisted on the viewing public.Seinfeld IMO was barely watchable,South Park was good though.Liked Married....with Children,Home Improvement,Two and a Half Men.....and College Football.Prolly next year disable the cable and just get the home antenna.Not ponying up for the corporate swill they've went to far already.Gonna have to hang on to an IP though
Then in flies a guy who's all dressed up just like a Union JackThat's like the old joke Mick Jagger was going on a tour of the Playboy Mansion West.Every level is more swanky, lavish and bawdy than the one before it.Finally Jagger in the elevator reaches Hefners penthouse,door opens up and he finds Heff and Dennis Weaver in an uncompromising position and yells "Hey Hugh get off McCloud".......thud
115 channels over the air???It's pulling out of Milwaukee and Rockford too. A couple out of NW Indiana.
WGN?
wow, big city
True... I also haven't watched Breaking Bad, and that might be on the list to go back and binge from the start.My sister would, and does. She doesn't need Netflix to do it though, she has all ten seasons on DVD. :)
But I highly doubt anyone is going back to binge-watch Friends from the start lol ;-)
Anyway, on Stranger Things, I thought season 1 was great. I thought Season 2 was weaker, and Season 3 was actually better. I do think all the boys not named Dustin (or Steve) ended up being minimized. I'm ok with that. I don't mind the Russians, I think that plotline is fun and kitschy and very much appropriate for the 80s. I'm good with it. The thing I love most about Stranger Things is that they try to make it like a show in 1984 that was conceived, produced, written, and acted in 1984, rather than a show about 1984 with all of the views and knowledge of 2019 built in.And here I thought you had a crush on Aunt Becky. :)
The 80s were cheeseball. Terminator Russian was great. Season 3 was a step up for me from Season 2. JMO.
I tried to watch 2 episodes of Breaking Bad, not my thing. Same thing for that HBO gangster show from years ago that so many people loved, don't even remember what it was called, but tried to watch it and also not my thing. Oh and Walking Dead absolutely bores me to tears. I'll occasionally watch it with my wife and it's really really not my thing. I did like some scenes with Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the bad guy, he's one of my favorite underrated character actors.
People have different taste though, that's for sure.
And here I thought you had a crush on Aunt Becky. :)Everyone had a crush on Aunt Becky.
A different kinda crush, today. Heh.Ha, no doubt I have a thing for Aunt Becky. :) No mullet though, not anymore.
Anyway, you'd have to have met UTee to get that reference. Really.
some folks think they get a screaming deal on a TV when they are simply buying a monitor without the tunerFor sure.
then they wonder why the "cable" won't work
Just an interesting point in favor of the antenna...
Way back in the analog days, using an antenna often led to a pretty poor picture, and spotty reception. One of the key selling points of cable at the time was picture quality.
This has reversed. These days, both cable and satellite have bandwidth limits because they have SO many channels to carry on a limited-bandwidth coax [cable] or limited amount of wireless spectrum [satellite]. It's made even harder, because due to backward compatibility with older set-top boxes, they often have to carry the same channels in older MPEG-2 compression for their old boxes, and carry the same channels in MPEG-4 or HEVC for their newest boxes. They're trying to carry 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag, and the only way to do that is to COMPRESS the hell out of the source.
This is also true of streaming and IPTV services, because they're optimizing for bandwidth as well. They have some advantages since they're point-to-point transmissions so they only need to send ONE signal, but they still try to compress it to reduce bandwidth use.
Digital broadcast doesn't have that problem. Each network has their own frequency, and they can broadcast a signal tuned for picture quality rather than tuned for saving bandwidth. And since digital is basically a "you have a picture or you don't" situation, rather than a progressive loss of quality like analog, as long as you are getting a signal, you're getting a 100% quality version of what was originally sent.
As a result, you'll often find that the network TV programming through your antenna actually looks BETTER than what comes across cable, satellite, or streaming.
Although I now have Hulu Live TV, which includes my locals, I had put an antenna on the house when I used Sling. I actually use the antenna rather than Hulu for most live network sports broadcasts because the signal quality is so much better.
For those I have a really good rooftop Winegard antenna that brings in signals I never knew existed locally.Around next May I will be pulling the plug on cable - is this an option I should look into?Not getting into streaming either F'em all.Will be picking up my own home phone sysytem also - I still have a land line as Cindy is here 2/3rds the time so it's relatively cheap.Next year I'll prolly just be paying for internet
Around next May I will be pulling the plug on cable - is this an option I should look into?Not getting into streaming either F'em all.Will be picking up my own home phone sysytem also - I still have a land line as Cindy is here 2/3rds the time so it's relatively cheap.Next year I'll prolly just be paying for internet
Someday, someone is going to put together a "Sports Only" option OTA or cable or whatever and charge $35 or whatever.There are two hurdles:
Just keep in mind that if you cut the cord and DON'T pursue a streaming option, you won't get BTN. ;)He's a Buckeye fan. They don't really play on BTN anyway, unless it's a game against an opponent they're favored by 20+.
Obviously, anything SEC is going to mean more, so they put their best efforts on that. All the top tech is developed down here anyway, you know, like the cotton gin. . . .:57:
now, if Netflix were to purchase rights to sports programming........Netflix hasn't that I'm aware of, but Amazon and Twitter both experimented with this for Thursday Night Football... Small players like Pluto TV have gotten into long-tail sporting events that wouldn't normally make it to ESPN/FoxSports or the networks.
I've heard rumors that Amazon may get the Sunday NFL ticket. The reality is there since they are already showing Thursday games. Still, imagine the cash grab on that one, "you're game is blacked out? Well for 4.99 you can watch it live." I am a chord cutter and I do miss watching college games but if the trend will be to have them on Amazon, I am all for it. I will also say that since I cut the chord, I save over 100 per month since, like someone else said, I already had Netflix and Amazon Prime. Also keep in mind, I am older than most so listening on iHeart radio is not a lot different than when I had to listen to them on the radio back in the day. Sometimes it's even better, I can always catch the highlights later.I can see it. With AT&T seemingly looking at de-emphasizing of the satellite TV market or potentially spinning off DirecTV's satellite business, I could easily see rights being up in the air. And the NFL would probably be able to license games to a bigger fish with more subscribers. Amazon Prime has 101M subscribers in the US and DirecTV has 21M households (according to the googles anyway).
How much will this cell phone "5G" thing change anything?Agreed with @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) -- except if residential 5G becomes a thing.
many wireless options for neighborhoodsYep. Which worries me, because I'm in the suburbs. Yes, Mission Viejo CA has pretty high population density compared to the suburbs of Wichita. But I don't know how profitable it is to build out 5G residential internet here. In places like LA, NYC, Chicago, SF, Seattle, it definitely does. I don't know if it makes sense here.
5G has limitations and issues like all the rest
one antenna can only support so many devices, obviously each site with one or multiple antennas needs to have a fiber backhaul. This is not as expensive as a fiber to each house, but it still requires an expensive build.
I've heard 6G is being worked on at this time!
I wonder how they'd price it. I have to think it's so valuable that it would be hard to just "include" it in your Prime subscription by default. And I'm not sure how much the NFL controls how it is priced to end users, or whether they just sell the rights. I'm pretty sure DirecTV never allowed individual games to be sold or Sunday Ticket to be only single-weekend availability, though. I wonder if Amazon could bring something like that to the table, as you suggest.That is the interesting part. I could see them being more like Direct TV/Cable with a base pack then have the add-ons. Right now I pay $13.90 per month for Prime but that does not include all movies and shows. They are more of a pay-per-view type. I can see them doing the same with the NFL. Right now, my guess anyway, they are using the Thursday night games to test viewership.
FYI this Forbes article suggests it's more than just rumors... https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonogus/2019/04/23/the-nfl-is-reportedly-in-discussions-with-amazon-and-disney-for-the-sunday-ticket-streaming-rights/#2f5176f3609b
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonogus/2019/04/23/the-nfl-is-reportedly-in-discussions-with-amazon-and-disney-for-the-sunday-ticket-streaming-rights/#2f5176f3609b)
There are all sorts of antenna options. I don't suppose you still have one of these lying around? :)Took it down in '06 when I had a roof put on figuring it went the way of the horse & buggy.Who knew that one day it could pick up digital with it.But a neighbor said No it wouldn't work and I sided with you - now I'll take that sixer of Live Oak Pils
(https://www.whitehouseblackshutters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/image6.png)
Just keep in mind that if you cut the cord and DON'T pursue a streaming option, you won't get BTN. ;)
There are two hurdles:
- Local networks
- ESPN
The local networks basically charge cable/satellite/streaming retransmission fees for the content that they broadcast free themselves. And a LOT of sports, particularly the NFL [which is the crown jewel], are shown on local networks. So while the optimal solution [to reduce subscriber cost] would be to ask the subscriber to put up an antenna for their locals and use the streaming service only for non-broadcast sports, that becomes a highly unwieldy answer for the folks who want one clean solution.
The bigger problem is ESPN. ESPN has as their ENTIRE business model the idea that their content is indispensable and must be offered by any cable/satellite/live-streaming service on the basic tier. This way they get their carriage fee for the entire subscriber base regardless of whether those folks ever watch the channel. Same thing the BTN did with "in-region" providers. The instant they start allowing someone to put it on a "sports-only" tier it starts enabling beleaguered cable companies, who would gladly sell a service WITHOUT ESPN/sports to the cost-conscious folks trying to cut the cord. If they allow this, ESPN's subscriber numbers plummet, and their business model needs to change. It's also the reason ESPN hasn't offered their own stand-alone package--they worry they'll lose leverage over the cable companies--the risk is higher than the reward.
I do agree it will happen someday. But I think ESPN's current business model has to be fractured by other forces before they'll step up to this table, and without ESPN you're toast trying to offer this service.
CD's statement about a sports-only model.....that's more or less what FUBO is right now. It's a total no-go for college football fans like me, and lacking the ESPN family is a glaring absence for a sports-focused cord-cutting option, but they haven't gone out of business yet. I imagine it's feasible for them to pick up ESPN at some point. I'm interested to see how they do. I know people who have it and watch a metric crap-ton of sports.Oddly I was going to bring up Fubo as an example. But I went to their web site, and realized that not only have they added a TON of non-sports content, they also increased their rate to $54.99/mo.
it would be nice if games involving Big Ten teams were only shown on Fox, FS1, FS2, and BTNMeanwhile, many of us in the Big 12 wish that Fox were not our prime partner, as we are sick of 11:00 a.m. game times.
perhaps someday
Meanwhile, many of us in the Big 12 wish that Fox were not our prime partner, as we are sick of 11:00 a.m. game times.Fox is not the only network to host 11am kicks
Fox is not the only network to host 11am kicks11 AM Central is considered the "national timeslot" for ABC, while 2:30 PM Central is the regional slot. The ability to regionalize the ESPNs and reverse mirror broadcasts has made that somewhat less important than it used to be, and the "relatively recent" addition of the primetime timeslot has also diminished the importance of the 11 AM "national timeslot" some, but in general it still remains true for ABC.
ESPN is guilty as well
heck, your game vs the Purple Kitties on ABC kicks at 11 tomorrow
I find the times to be fine in the ET, all day is covered, games usually don't run over (much).We usually do the opposite here in SoCal with those 9AM kickoffs that so many low-tier B1G teams play... Two weeks ago [no kids] I watched the Purdue/Maryland game in the morning while my wife ran errands, and it was over before 1 PM. We ended up going to a couple of breweries in the afternoon, then coming home and making a great dinner. Tomorrow [also no kids] Purdue/Illinois also kicks at 9 AM, and I don't know if we have afternoon plans, but we're going to be going to a cool rooftop bar in Laguna Beach and then a nice dinner date out. When we have the kids, of course, we do very few fun things so I just sit around and watch all day.
The wife allows me to veg all day after noon. We usually do some stuff before noon, and even later if the noon games are droll.
That is a cool word along with ilk.
figgin money grubbing networksThe schools are just as much part of the problem. They want the money from the networks, so they have to dance to the piper's tune.
1pm was preferred back in the ole Big 8 daze when all games weren't on the boob tube
You wanna Bet?I'll give you 4:1.
I'll give you 4:1.How many biddies do you have, CD?
A biddy of mine on FB posted a nearly $600 termination fee from Comcast for cutting service.
I still use Hulu. I got rid of Netflix, wasn't watching it much, plus it kept crashing my TCL Roku television. I should probably try Youtube TV at some point, but inertia has kept me from it.We us a ridicoulous number of streaming services. Finally got the wife to cancel YoutubeTV until Football season. Need the NFL Sunday ticket