Any Cord Cutters?

[monbla256]

I don't PAY for anything!! If it's not free, I don't have it as I live on a small fixed income so it's broadcast only for me!! I really don't know as I've missed all that much except for some of this years NSCAR! Gotta keep my priorities in line :twisted: :twisted: Besides if I paid for cable etc I wouldn't be able to afford to smoke my pipes !! :twisted: :twisted:

 

[RDPipes]

I have Suddenlink, and I haven't had cable ever since I left the dorms(before I graduated) and after. I pay for 50mB internet, and I have Amazon Prime, HBO Go, Netflix and Hulu Plus. I couldn't be happier with those, and I use my Chromecast for everything but Prime, which I use my Xbox to.

I hardly even use these, but I can definitely justify the costs of them versus cable and internet.

Oh! You mean SuddenStink! One of the worst providers I've ever had and I've had quite a lot.
I use to have Cox which was great till these nimrods came in and swallowed them up, now there trying to shove 10 pounds of horse manure in a 2 pound bag by offering digital etc, etc. and trying to shove it through an antiquated system. So that means I loose have my stations most the time at peak hours. I have nothing good to say about them and I've made it a point to tell them that.

 

[Brewdude]

Hey PB, how do you like the Fire over the Roku? I was thinking about picking one up for the bedroom (the wife often hides up there when I watch Football). Its about twice the price of the Roku, but it will let me watch everything I want one device.

Brewdude, If you haven't watched the History Channel in a few years, you aren't missing anything. It has gone the way of TLC, no more History just quasi-realty TV. Smithsonian channel was great, though, I will definitely miss that one.

Humph, sorry to hear that Dave. Used to be pretty good when I first started watching it back around '98 or so. Had a boatload of channels back then but the cost didn't justify the small amount of return it brought. So I paired it down to just the basics. Don't remember the Smithsonian channel though.


Cheers,

RR

 

[MichaelM]

We have had Dish Network sattelite since '95. I never watch it, but my wife never turns it off. Only thing I can stand to watch is sports, and if I can listen to the game on the radio I'm happy. I never got into the newer streaming technology. I've nothing against it, just happy to ignore it. Oh, I guess we do have Netflix and I do like the occasional classic movie. I watched The African Queen on Netflix last Saturday.
Mike.

 

[RDPipes]

Hey PB, how do you like the Fire over the Roku? I was thinking about picking one up for the bedroom (the wife often hides up there when I watch Football). Its about twice the price of the Roku, but it will let me watch everything I want one device.

Brewdude, If you haven't watched the History Channel in a few years, you aren't missing anything. It has gone the way of TLC, no more History just quasi-realty TV. Smithsonian channel was great, though, I will definitely miss that one.

Humph, sorry to hear that Dave. Used to be pretty good when I first started watching it back around '98 or so. Had a boatload of channels back then but the cost didn't justify the small amount of return it brought. So I paired it down to just the basics. Don't remember the Smithsonian channel though.


Cheers,

RR

I still think it's the best channel on all of cable, it be better if they'd just get rid of that cockamamie Nose Pickers and Con Stars. :suspect:

 

[Clay]

I cut off the cable 6 months ago to save some money and be more active.  It worked! I got a lot done this summer.

 

[Richard Burley]

I cut off the cable 6 months ago to save some money and be more active.  It worked! I got a lot done this summer.

:cheers: You are one hell of a man! Congratulations! Seriously.

 

[Clay]

I cut off the cable 6 months ago to save some money and be more active.  It worked! I got a lot done this summer.

:cheers: You are one hell of a man! Congratulations! Seriously.

Thank you sir! I guess I needed a pat on the back. I put a new roof on my mud room, and cut, split, and stacked 2 1/2-3 cordes of firewood. The trick for this old fat guy was to picked a iced coffee after work. Now we are coming into the rain season, yesterday heavy rain and blowing with gust to 45, that's not surprising for here. Perfect weather to watch TV.  Oh well, I need to catch up on my reading and I will have more time here!! We do have a DVD player we use.

 

[Smokey-smokey]

Cut the cord months ago and never been happier, we were paying 200 bucks a month for a bunch of commercial packed crap we didn't even enjoy watching.

Internet, Roku, and a subscription to Netflix and Amazon takes care of my needs. My wife uses Hulu.

I wouldn't mind going back to cable if I could pay by the channel and leave out whatever I don't want.

 

[puros_bran]

Smokey that will never happen. From what I understand the laws are written requiring them to carry public stations and believe it or not the shopping stations. There may be others that are required like local stations but I'm unsure. I guess what I'm saying is as good, no great, an idea it is the law would have to be changed first.

 

[user 2031]

Smokey that will never happen.   From what I understand the laws are written requiring them to carry public stations and believe it or not the shopping stations. There may be others that are required like local stations but I'm unsure.      I guess what I'm saying is as good, no great, an idea it is  the law would have to be changed first.  

Yep, packages are made in a way that successful stations help support unsuccessful stations. :roll:

I believe they should have to stand alone, sink or swim.

 

[Brewdude]

Smokey that will never happen.   From what I understand the laws are written requiring them to carry public stations and believe it or not the shopping stations. There may be others that are required like local stations but I'm unsure.      I guess what I'm saying is as good, no great, an idea it is  the law would have to be changed first.  

Yep, packages are made in a way that successful stations help support unsuccessful stations. :roll:

I believe they should have to stand alone, sink or swim.

I've believed for many years that the customers should be able to pick and choose (and pay) for what they want, same as anything else in the world. The packages they offer have more S**t in it than anything else. Who watches those shopping/public access channels anyways??

:x

Cheers?



RR

 

[leacha]

I've been following this thread and its interesting to see everyone's comments.

I cut the cord 14 or 15 months ago. We (my wife and I) had a baby and we soon found out there was no time to watch TV so I canceled DirecTV, installed an HD antenna, purchased a few Rokus, signed up for Netflix and Hulu (already had Amazon Prime). A month later I dumped Hulu. I had a problem paying to watch commercials. I now have all I need and when I need it. No regrets.

 

[Dave_In_Philly]

Dave.      If you have Amazon Prime get it... If you don't, stick with Roku.  

The Amazon remote is way to easy to lose.
Not as many options as Roku as far as stations go (wether you call them apps or channels.) but all the important stuff is there.
Amazon does have a nicer interface.

I bought the Amazon box when it was $100.  I bought the Roku 3 when it was $100.  For $100 Amazon wins. If Roku 3 (or better) is $50 Roku wins.

Roku 3 is listed at $99, but is routinely on sale for $60-70. Amazon had been holding steady at $100, but this weekend Bestbuy had it for $85, and today Staples started selling it for $75. So I took the bait.

I was an early adopter of the Roku and still love it, but Comcast blocks access to HBO Go on Roku for some odd reason. If it weren't for that, I would go with the Roku without hesitation.

 

[Smokey-smokey]

Smokey that will never happen.   From what I understand the laws are written requiring them to carry public stations and believe it or not the shopping stations. There may be others that are required like local stations but I'm unsure.      I guess what I'm saying is as good, no great, an idea it is  the law would have to be changed first.  

Yep, packages are made in a way that successful stations help support unsuccessful stations. :roll:

I believe they should have to stand alone, sink or swim.

I've believed for many years that the customers should be able to pick and choose (and pay) for what they want, same as anything else in the world. The packages they offer have more S**t in it than anything else. Who watches those shopping/public access channels anyways??

:x

Cheers?



RR

Though it could very well be the law that requires carriers to have all kinds of channels, I don't think that is actually the case, but I could be entirely wrong. The last time I read up on this issue (and it was many years ago so the law could have changed) it had more to do with network ownership. We, in the US, have lots and lots of channels but the companies that own them are few, and they have their rules. If you want ESPN and the company that controls ESPN also owns "the kite channel" then you are stuck with both. Yeah, ESPN would help support the kite channel, which I doubt anyone would want to watch.

I do think that channels should stand alone because it is not really the most successful channel helping the lame ones, it is you, the subscriber. Your cable bill includes the money that the cable carrier pays the actual station per subscriber. For example, if Comcast carries ESPN then Comcast has to pay X amount of dollars to ESPN per subscriber. Normally, channels cost cents to 1 or 2 dollars per subscriber, and there are some, like ESPN, that are over 5 dollars. You think 5 bucks for one channel, or cents for some others isn't a lot, but it adds up. ESPN is the most expensive channel, why not have the ESPN network be a separate package?

ESPN isn't something I care much for. I like baseball and amateur boxing, I can get that in other channels, cheaper too, why am I stuck paying for ESPN? Cable has a few hundred channels, out of which I could shave off about 50 bucks a month because I don't need them. I do realize that not everyone wants to shave off the same channels, but I do think that you might want to avoid paying for the ones I may want to watch.

$50 dollars a month isn't such an amount that would really impact my finances, but that's 600/yr I can use for something else entirely, and I believe this is the main reason why a lot of people are cutting their cable. Let's quantify it to see how much we save. I had a package that cost me 200/month + internet which I won't count towards cable because I need the internet, it is the equivalent of having a landline 10-20 years ago.

Plan 1 - Cable
200/mo = 2400/yr (with not much to watch) - This includes box rentals (this is another pet peeve, I have to "rent" a box to pay you for a service?)

Plan 2
Roku+Hulu+Netflix+MLB

Roku= 100 (at the most), 8.3 dollars a month we can count a "rental fees," which will not be there after the first year
Hulu = 8 bucks a month = 96/yr
Netflix = 8/mo = 96/yr
MLB = 50/yr
TOTAL 1st year: 342.00
Total 2nd year: 242.00 (no longer paying for Roku) - This is close to what you pay monthly for cable.
Total Monthly for 2nd year: 20.16 per month (SAVINGS: 179.84 per MONTH)

So why are people still paying for cable?

Mind you, I did not include some things here, here's what and the reasons:
- Amazon Prime: I already had a prime subscription for other reasons, the fact that they have instant video is a plus
- Internet subscription: I already had one, as I suspect many people do

I get exactly what I want, on demand, no BS and a fraction of a fraction of the commercials, for 180 bucks a month cheaper plus I can get free channels too. Also, I can customize my subscription to plan 2 and drop whatever I want at any point.

You'd think cable companies would get smarter and offer us something better, what do they do instead? they drop netflix so you have to go get HBO...

 

[Bullwinkle]

where are you guys paying $200 a month for cable?

 

[puros_bran]

It gets deeper depending on a lot of different circumstances but the base line.
The rules get even more screwy with satellite.
From Fcc.gov

Q: Why must my cable system carry so many broadcast stations?

A: The Communications Act requires cable operators to set aside a specified portion of their channels for local commercial and non-commercial television stations. A cable operator with 12 or fewer channels must set aside up to three channels for local commercial television stations and at least one channel for a local noncommercial educational television broadcast station. Cable operators with more than 12 channels must set aside one third of their channel capacity for local commercial stations. Cable systems with between 13 and 36 channels must carry at least one, but need not carry more than three, local noncommercial educational television stations. Cable systems with more than 36 channels must carry all local noncommercial educational television stations requesting carriage with some exceptions for duplication of signals. Local television stations choosing the must-carry option and those that have negotiated agreements for retransmission with the cable system count towards this quota.

 

[Puff Daddy]

Does this roku thing get you espn and nfl football?

 

[puros_bran]

no.

 

[Smokey-smokey]

Does this roku thing get you espn and nfl football?

ESPN no, unless you have a cable subscription.
NFL - I don't know

PB: The way I'm reading the law you posted, it seems to deal with local channels, not about having to carry one channel (non-local) because the owner of the channel also owns other non-local channels. The question then becomes, how does the law define a local channel? Is it a local, public access station? or having a relay station in the area qualify a channel like, say, ESPN as a local channel?