Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

One In Eight To Cut Cable and Satellite TV In 2010

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the cue-panic-from-the-cablecos dept.

Television 502

r0k3t writes "It looks like people are finally getting sick of overpriced, ad-infested cable and satellite TV. I had predicted that by 2005 we would mostly be using the net for video — seems like I was a few years off. From the article: 'A cutting-the-cord trend has been the subject of speculation for some time, as networks have increasingly made television programming available for free on the Internet. But a combination of other factors, including a growing number of battles between cable companies and networks, soaring Internet video viewings, and an increase in connected TVs and devices, suggest the trend is finally upon us. ... The biggest reason why customers will cut the cord, according to the study, is the growing cost of pay-TV service. Cable and satellite viewers pay an average of $71 per month, and they receive an average annual price hike of 5%, according to research firm Centris.'" How many of you have made the switch to Internet-only TV, or are considering it? Any regrets?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. (5, Interesting)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057136)

I gave up TV in 2003. Just use BBC iPlayer for the Doctor Who episodes now. Everything else is a combination of iTunes rentals, torrents and podcasts.

Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057210)

I just use OTA & torrents. When something is available for a reasonable price (under 80p per episode for TV) I might buy it on DVD.

Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057218)

Yep. I did similarly, and around a similar time frame. I haven't turned on broadcast TV for longer than 5 minutes in years in my own home.

Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. (4, Interesting)

u38cg (607297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057354)

Same. I moved in with my partner in early 2004 and being poor and in love, we couldn't afford a TV and found other ways (ahem) to spend our time. We've never got round to buying one. We did inherit one when we moved into our current place, and I'm glad it's there, because when the next 9/11 hits, the internet will be a dead zone (it was bad enough last time). Useful to know I can still get BBC One if I have to.

Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. (2, Informative)

stoat (125788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057376)

I still have basic cable but rarely use it. Most shows I'd like to watch are posted to usenet within 30 minutes of airing.

Automatic feeds to download what I like in 720p. Don't feel too bad about it since I keep basic for cnbc.

Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. (4, Interesting)

mickwd (196449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057496)

Similar here. Don't watch much TV "live" at all, but iPlayer is great for many of the things I do want to see.

Seems like television is one of those things where too much competition is not necessarily a good thing. More channels means fewer and fewer viewers per channel, which means less money from advertisers, which means less money spent on programs. We're lucky we have the BBC to still produce some quality programs (with no adverts!), but it's got a unique funding method which seems to be coming under more and more fire.

I swear TV programs were better when there were only 4 channels (with the advertising pennies split between only 2 channels). And without Sky to pay big money for films, the terrestrial ("free") channels would get them more cheaply, too.

Now we have dozens, if not hundreds, of channels, most of which are complete crap, most of the time (for all its good stuff, the BBC makes a lot of rubbish too).

Not to mention what's going to happen to football in this country (soccer for you US-ians) when Murdoch pulls the plug on funding the Premier League, because he's already got all the viewers he needs.....

2007 (3, Insightful)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057138)

I made the switch in 2007, when I got my 24 inch iMac, and an EyeTV TV tuner. No regrets, really. Between Hulu and Netflix and OTA, I can watch pretty much everything I want.

Re:2007 (5, Insightful)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057400)

EyeTV TV tuner

Isn't that just a round about way to say you have a TV, it's just in your computer?

Re:2007 (4, Informative)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057516)

hes using an antenna to watch Over The Air (OTA) content.

im living with my parents while i go to school, the only time i turn on the TV is to watch hockey.

i do have an HD lcd, and im almost tempted to get a tuner card and an antenna but...i dont really care. hulu/torrents/netflix has plenty for me for the rare times i want to watch something. when i lived alone a few years ago i didnt have cable, it wasnt worth it.

TV? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057180)

I'm sick of overpriced, ad infested cable internet.

Re:TV? (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057212)

I'm sick of overpriced, ad infested internet.

There, fixed it.

Re:TV? (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057304)

On the web you can at least use ad blocking software or simply avoid ad-supported content to a greater degree than you can with TV, I get ~15 channels via cable for "free" (included in the rent), of those 13 have commercials. I'd rather go without TV than suffer through 15 minutes of crappy german detergent commercials (poorly) dubbed to swedish every hour.

47" HDTV, no cable, no blue ray discs (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057188)

There just is not the content out there worth paying the amounts they want.
The price set exceeds my demand.

Also 99% of it is crap.

Off the air for what I can get if it fits my time. Really don't even watch stuff off the net.

Re:47" HDTV, no cable, no blue ray discs (4, Insightful)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057356)

Pretty much. I have a fairly comprehensive cable package (not a big deal; I can afford it), but I'm getting ready to drop it anyway after many, many nights of "500 channels and nothing I want to watch." On-Demand helps a bit, but I'm thinking that Netflix or just buying DVD / BluRay makes more sense at this point. If I price out the programming that I actually "look forward to" I'm probably paying something like $20 / hour / month (with a massive pile of crap added on for "free").

There is some value to be had for the convenience and being able to participate in the social interaction geared around the current shows, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Offsetting that, not having 500 channels of crap will probably be life-enhancing (after a period of adjustment).

Re:47" HDTV, no cable, no blue ray discs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057390)

My "social interaction geared around the current shows" is downloading them when they are new and watching them with friends. Really. There is no legal way to get the new Doctor Who eps in a reasonable amount of time in the US anyway.

Re:47" HDTV, no cable, no blue ray discs (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057486)

Don't you mean to say "57 channels and there's nothing on..."? We suffer from that here, although it's more like 200 channels, with maybe 13 channels showing content worth watching. The rest is filled with absolute drek. This summer comes time to make fixes to change that.

Re:47" HDTV, no cable, no blue ray discs (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057626)

but I'm getting ready to drop it anyway after many, many nights of "500 channels and nothing I want to watch.

And that's the thing, isn't it. Now, what really does help there is having a decent DVR. There are always shows and movies on that you would like to watch, they're just not on when you want to watch them. Having a DVR changes the TV watching experience completely. For me, it's like having the ScrewMaster Channel ... all my favorites, all the time!

What I find very shortsighted on the part of a number of programming providers (yeah, HBO, I'm looking at you) is that they disallow recording! I have AT&T U-Verse, and while the WIN CE-based DVR is adequate, I've noticed a growing trend among channels to remotely disable recording ("Channel xxx Doesn't Allow Recording.") Hysterical ... the ONE reason that I still pay for TV and you're taking it away from me. Well, I canceled all the so-called "premium" channels, and that was one of the reasons why. I mean, if you scroll through the guide on any of them: HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc, you'll see the same damn movies over and over, with an occasional gem on at three in the morning. If I can't time shift the few items that I really want to see, then I can't get any benefit from your offerings. Idiots.

using the net for video (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057192)

Not if the ISPs/Content providers have anything to do with it. Remember net neutrality?

Besides, you can expect the commercials to follow you regardless of how you get the content.

Re:using the net for video (2, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057344)

Actually, you'll have the cable/telecoms companies become the only providers of Internet, legislate away p2p (see the ruling earlier today "unmasking" file-sharers), strangle services such as netflix, cut the selection of available shows and then push even MORE INTRUSIVE advertising down our throats.

IOW, I don't see any great, worth-while trade offs here, especially since the only decent broadband provider I have access to is my local cable company. They get their cut either way (and I get ads and shit tv shoved down my throat either way).

The only winning scenario I can see involves boycotting television altogether.

Re:using the net for video (1)

nerdonamotorcycle (710980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057422)

Yeah, there's a lot of the USA where there's either no broadband access at all, or the only broadband provider is the local franchised cable monopoly. What are those people going to do?

Re:using the net for video (2, Insightful)

yotto (590067) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057584)

Go outside?

Seriously, if they throttle Netflix and Hulu (or Hulu kills itself with an asinine payment system) I'll just do without. It can only make my life better.

Re:using the net for video (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057366)

Besides, you can expect the commercials to follow you regardless of how you get the content.

The thing is, when you pay for your content on the internet (netflix, itunes, whatever) you get it instantly, on-demand, and ad-free. If you're paying for it, then ads would be ludicrously out of place.

So why is cable TV $70/mo and still ad-infested?

Ads for a discount (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057434)

So why is cable TV $70/mo and still ad-infested?

Because the same channels would be $300/mo without ads.

Re:Ads for a discount (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057548)

Do you have a source for that, or is it just BS to make cable companies look better?

Re:Ads for a discount (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057598)

What about just the five shows on those 500 channels that I'm interested in?

52" LCD, XBox 360, Mac Mini, HD OTA, Internet (1)

dukeluke (712001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057198)

Seriously, who would seriously want to pay monthly for service you can just as easily get otherwise. TV + HD OTA Mac Mini + Internet (either streaming or download) XBox 360 + Netflix Mac Mini + Hulu Mac Mini + iTunes Best part is, it's wife-proof! We watch all the TV we want with substantially fewer commercials. I mean, a 30 second commercial interruption is far better than 5 minutes of commercial interruptions.

Re:52" LCD, XBox 360, Mac Mini, HD OTA, Internet (1, Troll)

MpVpRb (1423381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057580)

I mean, a 30 second commercial interruption is far better than 5 minutes of commercial interruptions.

And I suppose that death by lethal injection is better than death by torture.

Commercials suck.

satellite viewers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057220)

Why pay $71 per month when the ISS can be seen with the naked eye?

Re:satellite viewers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057308)

And why pay for porn when your mom can be seen naked by everyone?

Question (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057222)

I will be leaving college in a year (or so) and my only hesitation to dishing the cable (bad joke I know) is the occasional football games and live news. Could this be supplemented by the internet - as in watching live ESPN or The Masters with some subscription service? I haven't really done much of any research here and do not really know my options; anyone have something that you particularly like? - Thanks

Re:Question (1)

WMD_88 (843388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057594)

The Masters is on CBS...get an antenna...as for ESPN, no idea, but what I *do* know is that the MLB has a service that lets you watch any baseball game over the Internet...a coworker of mine has it, and I think he pays $99 a year. I haven't looked to see if the NFL has something similar, but if they don't, they probably will within a few years.

I have been disconnected for about 4 1/2 years. (5, Interesting)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057232)

Sure, I miss not getting shows that friends talk about at work, but I have other ways. And with Hulu and Netflix, I rely on those other ways less and less, if at all. I want to pay for my content, but not everyone else's. Watching the fiasco's with Disney and ESPN (among others over the years), I was glad that I wasn't involved and getting suckered.

  For me, it began over watching the Discovery Science channel. It was channel 101 and suddenly just out of my lineup range. I had been trying to explain to my father (who lived with me) science concepts, as he was opening up more and showing interest. The TV shows's imagery and hosts could often explain things better than I could, and I might learn something new as well. My free trial was over, and so I called Adelphia (now Comcast) up. They said that not only would I have to forsake my special rate of something like $35 for the next 6 months (I think I had it for a year total) I would have to pay for digital cable and also the first additional digital package. So, for 1 channel they wanted me to almost triple my bill to $95. My next words were, "Cut it off."

  Unfortunately I still am dealing with them over Internet service, but maybe in time things will get better.

Re:I have been disconnected for about 4 1/2 years. (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057268)

Unfortunately I still am dealing with them over Internet service, but maybe in time things will get better.
That is I meant to say that in time perhaps my other options will get better.

Re:I have been disconnected for about 4 1/2 years. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057314)

If you're learning stuff about science from Discovery then you probably don't know much about science.

Discovery is like Wikipedia (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057342)

The Discovery channels are like Wikipedia: they give you an overview so that if you're interested in a subject, you can drill down.

Re:Discovery is like Wikipedia (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057350)

Ha! If only.

The Discovery channels are full of sensationalist garbage.

Re:Discovery is like Wikipedia (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057446)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

The Discovery channels are full of sensationalist garbage.

As is Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles about non-scholarly subjects are supposed to represent the consensus of the mainstream media, and a lot of times, this consensus is "sensationalist garbage".

Re:I have been disconnected for about 4 1/2 years. (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057334)

The way the networks are run I'd swear that they _want_ people to download shows instead of using their services. A typical show seems to run for 2 weeks, then be interrupted for some special event. Then, they'll show another episode, and then quietly move it to another time slot. Then, they'll show another 2 episodes, and then 2 weeks on re-runs. Then time for a 3 month break for the holidays. When they come back after that, the show will be offset 5 minutes because of "Dancing with the Frikkin' Stars" and I miss the end because they've lied to my PVR about the start and end times. Seriously guys, you're driving people to download the damn shows.

Re:I have been disconnected for about 4 1/2 years. (1)

nerdonamotorcycle (710980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057394)

Usually that's the approach networks take with shows they want to kill off--move it around the schedule, pre-empt it a lot, etc.

Re:I have been disconnected for about 4 1/2 years. (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057526)

That's the problem with good shows where continuity is important and functional neurons are required to enjoy the show - especially on Fox. This is even more true of shows that cost a bit more to produce (Arrested Development, Firefly, Futurama, Family Guy, etc.) Networks like lowest-common-denominator shows, and unfortunately, People Magazine-styled "reality"[sic] shows because they are cheap to produce. When a show costs a lot to produce and is a concept that wins over a programming director's idea, they engage in corporate politics and sabotage show ratings by playing musical timeslots, and picking timeslots where they are usually preempted by "special events" or sports, which will of course kill ratings (or they air the show opposite well-established same-genre shows on other networks so it never gains a large following. Prime example: Firefly). Then, they claim the ratings were lousy (of course they were - you air episodes out of order, it doesn't air when scheduled, etc) and then cancel the show. Several have been brought back after DVD sales proved the demand was there despite "low" ratings: Firefox (Serenity - and unfortunately Serenity sucked so it flopped), Arrested Development (being continued as a feature film), Family Guy (started back initially on Comedy Central then before it even aired, Fox decided to put it back on their broadcast schedule), Futurama (I expect this will make it back to the Fox broadcast schedule because it absolutely dominated its timeslots when Adult Swim had it - now everyone has seen all the episodes 5 times by now and own the DVDs so ratings have understandably stopped), etc. In some cases Fox has tried to kill shows only to find that demand forced its continuation.

I've lost interested in following more-engaging shows, especially on Faux, for precisely those reasons. Chances are. if the show is well-produced, well-scripted, and clever, it costs a lot to produce and won over someone else's new bland "reality"[sic] show idea, so it will be killed off one way or another. If a show makes it a few seasons, I'll catch them on reruns (or online) and then start watching it on the network. Example: House M.D.

Broadcast networks are almost as bad as the RIAA in trying to manipulate viewer selections to their preferred low-cost productions.

Hulu, Neflicks, and Amazon (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057442)

Hear hear. Hulu has many of the science shows(Nova, National Geographic, Disovery Chanel, etc...) and things that aren't on TV any longer (Firefly).

The only sucky part about Hulu is that sometimes, all they have are clips of certain shows or limited run time (Buffy the Vampire slayer).

If you Netflicks and Amazon, you can watch many shows that are on DVD - without ads.

OTA and net (2, Insightful)

Beaker74 (453388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057236)

We watch what we want OTA from the networks, and with the help of an OTA DVR (DTVPal DVR) we "tape" what we can, and use Hulu for the rest.

Also, don't underestimate the TV antenna. (4, Informative)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057242)

If you live in a city and invest in a decent antenna, you will get enough HDTV programming to cover your typical urge to just be a couch vegetable for a while. The internet and Netflix is a great supplement to this, leaving you with more to watch than ever before.

You can't get Internet over an antenna (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057360)

But then how do you get that Internet access? If you cut your cable, you can't easily get cable Internet, and if you switch to a cell phone, you can't easily get DSL. Well, you can, but they charge you a "line fee" equal to the price of limited basic TV or basic telephone service. Nor can you get a video-grade Internet connection over the air. And if you try to get your Internet access by tethering your PC to your cell phone, the 5 GB per month cap will ensure that the only Netflix service you get is DVDs by mail, not Watch Instantly.

Tv sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057244)

Never had anything other than Internet in the first place...

I'm on broadcast TV (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057248)

Sat and cable are too expensive, and I don't watch much anyway. Maybe someday I'll get a Slingbox or similar so I can do video-on-demand, but it's not a priority.

For many many areas, this makes no sense (4, Interesting)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057250)

"It looks like people are finally getting sick of overpriced, ad-infested cable and satellite TV. I had predicted that by 2005 we would mostly be using the net for video — seems like I was a few years off. From the article: 'A cutting-the-cord trend has been the subject of speculation for some time, as networks have increasingly made television programming available for free on the Internet.

So... why would I (or numerous others in similar situations) do this when we can get high speed Internet for $30 a month IF we spend another $30 on cable?

So, honestly, I could drop cable (and thus Internet) and then spend more than $60 a month to get Internet (of a similar speed) from someplace else? See why this article doesnt make sense? Nowadays with the cable/Internet bundling prices, people would simply revert to basic cable (ie: no HBO, SHO, etc) and keep their cheap-yet-decent-speed Internet.

After all, without that decent/high speed Internet connection, one cannot watch "online TV" - and for many that means keeping cable as well (and for a growing number, it means keeping Verizon's equivalent or paying a lot more for just Internet).

Now, as far as satellite goes... sure... I could see a bunch dropping that. My brother got satellite for a while... but it meant he had to pay extra to get Internet from someplace else, so, even though satellite at least offered more channels and somewhat better quality on a bunch, overall it wasnt worth it when getting a comparable Internet connection to the previous cable one (28Mb/7Mb) would cost quite a bunch. So, out went the satellite, back in went the cable.

Re:For many many areas, this makes no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057596)

Here in AZ you pay taxes on top of basic cable, if you cut out basic cable which is "free" with internet access you save about $15 in taxes.

$60 for only internet

$50 internet + $10 basic cable + $15 taxes = $75

Re:For many many areas, this makes no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057606)

I don't know what Cable Co you are with, but TWC (in the Albany NY area at least) for just watch and surf is: $84.90 Monthly* for 12 months, then after that is around 112 or something with all the taxes and such. So I don't know where you can get $30 and $30, I do know they offer a cheap 754 down 128 up for 30, but Can't deal with that myself.

I just talked my wife into going MythTV/Hulu and dropping down to basic basic (i say basic twice cause they call 1-100 basic or something) which is 1-23. Would save about $40/month. If I had better reception, I would consider dropping them all together. (except with RR i do get espn cause they have to open channel 24 to allow RR or something, so wouldn't miss out on my Monday Night football).

many also reducing (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057252)

I know we are looking at cutting back the channels a bit. We wouldn't get rid of our dish entirely but do we really need HGTV and MTV? Going with the basic channels will save us $30/month approximately. Anything I miss I can probably find online somewhere if I really want it.

I switched to rapidshare/megaupload/hotfile/etc.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057260)

I switched, so you can do it too !

And I can tell you the variety is marbulous, wonderfull simply spoken great .. no ads .. no annoying persons in ads. I like the tv/movie-cloud

- No german talking guys.
- No persons who're desperatly trying to be famous
- it's wonderfull and I get untranslated, blunt british humor at no cost

But I miss the weather-report .. now I have to take a look outside the next day to decide if I'm wearing my pink raincoat or my knickers.

ps.
thanks to all the hardworking guys on sharedhosting-tv, you do a great job !

pps.
I'm starv'in for IT Crowd S4 and Caprica !

Weather.gov (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057396)

I switched, so you can do it too !

If you cut your cable TV, from whom do you get high-speed Internet?

But I miss the weather-report

That's what Weather.gov and foreign counterparts are for. What you really might miss over the Internet is live sports.

TV what? (1)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057264)

I sold my remaining TV about 5 years ago when I realized I had not even turned it on for many months. I don't miss it at all.
Anything worth watching is on the internet.

Connect your PC to your HDTV (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057420)

If it's an SDTV, I understand why you got rid of it. But if it's an HDTV, keep it: you can connect your PC's VGA out to the TV's VGA in or the PC's DVI out to the TV's HDMI in. This gives you a PC monitor that you and your friends can comfortably fit around.

I would ditch it today if... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057266)

There are a few programs I like that are only on cable/sat: some of Comedy Central, Sy-Fy, History, and Discovery. I see those episodes on torrent sites the day after showing up on sat, but I pay for what I watch, so I keep my Dish. The problem is the 80% crap most people don't care about that is bundled with even the basic packages.

Ala carte channels would fix this, but that won't happen. Maybe individual program downloads if appropriately priced (say 25 cents for a Daily Show, or 50 cents for an episode of Caprica) would work. But I suspect the pricing will be more like $1 for an episode of the Daily Show *with* commercials and $4.99 for an episode of Caprica, so no dice there.

In the end, I guess the industry will price me out of watching even those few show and I will drop Dish and just stop watching. It does not have to be that way, but that is what the industry is choosing.

Re: I would ditch it today if... (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057424)

But I suspect the pricing will be more like $1 for an episode of the Daily Show *with* commercials

I watch the Daily Show online, it's theoretically on the comedy central website, but being on the wrong side of a border, I watch it on the crummy site of the local media-bullshit company. Their site sucks, I hate them, I hope their business will fail, but I can watch the show on their site, for now... when it's uloadded and working (which is about 85% of the time).

Re: I would ditch it today if... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057532)

So to compress your reasoning down to its essence: You think you pay for what you watch. Which would be nice and good... If the original makers would see anything of it.
But after 98% of the money going to those crappy shows, and at least 95% of those 2% going to the cable company, tv station and distribution company, maybe with a bit of luck, the people who deserve to actually earn the money for their work, get perhaps about 0.1% of what you pay.

On the other hand, watching the Daily Show on their site, will get nearly all of it to the actual team. But stupidly they don’t let us pay the fraction of a cent that they get from us via advertising, via paypal. I block all ads, since I don’t need to be told lies, and have no interest in frauds. (ALL ads are criminal fraud.) They either offer me a ad-free deal, or I’ll pull it via torrent.

can't wait to say good bye (1)

Lord Dreamshaper (696630) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057282)

can't wean the wife and kids off the tube, but by the time we empty nest we'll be gone. Personally I watch only one show, never catch it live because the timeslot is inconvenient to my work schedule, so I have watched every episode online. I might miss live sports but I don't watch regular season games unless my teams are contenders. I'm betting that by the time I cut the cable, most pro sports will be available live with ads like tv episodes. Heads up to advertisers: I'm more likely to watch your ads when it's 30-60 seconds online than I do when it's 2-5 mins on TV and I can channel hop and get interested in something else or grab a snack in the kitchen, etc... In other words, if you think you're getting your money's worth on broadcast TV, then you'd definitely get more than twice the value from showing half the commercials online at twice the price.

Can't watch commercials anymore (1)

cheatch (1713998) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057288)

I made the switch when I moved out last year, now I can barely stomach tv commercials at all. I tried to watch Lost on broadcast a couple weeks ago because didn't want to stay up late for it to be uploaded and had class in the morning, I couldn't make it halfway through.

Cut the cord when I lost my job... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057296)

...and never went back, even though I now make enough money to afford cable.

I only make an effort to watch a show if I'm really interested in it.

Re:Cut the cord when I lost my job... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057542)

Honestly our household has been cable-free since 1994, and when NTSC OTA ended we never bothered to buy a converter box. Honestly up until a few months ago my mom wasn't missing it much at . My dad has only bothered with TV to watch racing over at my grandmother's and only when there's actually something on (Speed went from having a very nice lineup of auto shows to showing only reruns from it's first 2-3 years on the air. Almost nothing new seems to show up on there except for the occasion current-season race, and like every other channel on cable, there's nothing to watch between say 1am and 6am in the morning, which at least for me had been a key viewing time for television to begin with.)

Honestly I'm a bit surprised that large swathes of the consumer demographic are coming to the same conclusion, but not at all surprised from a rational business perspective. The whole benefit of cable has been offset by the amount of advertising and 'non-core demographic programming' being passed off on niche channels. SciFi, Speed, and most of the other channels were supposed to cater to a reasonably narrow group of people. But rather than figuring out what that group wanted, and doing a better job pulling in viewership from that demographic they chose to 'dumb them down' and try and pull in viewship from other genres, thus alienating their original viewership while only pulling in people from the larger more competitive demographics (I'm mostly thinking Sci-Fi/WWE/BSG here, all of which appeals more to the Drama geeks than to the sci-fi ones.)

But that's just my 2 cents. Hulu/crunchyroll and the dozens of other sites will tide me over until the ads get too much, then I'll go back to reading and/or programming. But broadcast TV has seen the last of me, unless I ever get a Mu or Kappa for foreign OTA Satellite (Go do a search for it, there's a lot of channels out there if you don't mind the hassle of aligning your dish.)

Dropped TV Years Ago (1)

Philotomy (1635267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057298)

I've been without cable or satellite TV for years. I watch DVDs, and lately have been watching most shows/movies with Netflix instant (or from the TV networks on the Internet). I've been getting by with a 6Mbps DSL line, but I'm getting ready to switch over to 25Mbps cable (internet only, no TV). At some point, I'll probably get a new TV, at which time I'll use an antenna for HDTV.

Free to Air Satellite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057310)

Free to Air Satellite offers a wide array of programming. The majority of that available in the United States is not in English and targets ethnic audiences. English language programming is available such as CCTV News (formerly CCTV-9), Al Jazeera English and RT (formerly Russia Today). There are also a variety of religious channels in many languages.

This should not be confused with the, often called, FTA that amounts to the unauthorized decryption of encrypted signals.

Ku band generally requires a dish less than 1m. C band generally requires a larger dish.

Antenna TV for Me (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057320)

I've gotten by nicely on antenna tv and internet video for years now.
I catch my shows online, netflix for movies and t.v. for local news and background noise.
T.V. is mostly obsolete aside from watching movies.
I understand you can recycle satellite dishes to run long distance usb wi-fi.

no TV since 2001 (1)

fortfive (1582005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057326)

I haven't had a TV in my house since 2001. I watched on my computer from the indie video store, later netflix, and now the net. Incidentally, since hulu et al., my TV viewership has gone way up. I do have a big monitor in front of the couch, now.

I honestly hadn't watched any TV until Battlestar Galactaca and Lost sucked me in.

Now there's Glee, Community, Dexter...the list goes on.

p.s. it means I'm cooler since I've been without a TV longer, right?

There's still the kids. (1)

LarrySDonald (1172757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057328)

and other non-techies. I theory, there's no reason my kids and wife couldn't just pull up what they want to watch like a normal person and in fact they do - even my six year old watch cartoons online, movies off the wii, etc. But they're still used to the DJ-style background mix of cable, and with eight TVs there's no cohesive way to play "anything, even if it's crap" on all of them. Nor does there seem to be way to get "whatever is on" pandora style for TV - it's all on all the time, more choices then they'd like. They still also listen to terrestrial radio, even though there is sat and mp3 with everything on it, because they don't feel like getting stuck trying to pick and just want whatever is on.

2006 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057330)

December 2006 the Dutch government puled the plug on analog TV broadcasts, and I can't get cable here. The lack of anthing worth watching didn't help either.

2002 (1)

jameson (54982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057348)

I pretty much stopped watching TV in 2002, when I moved to the US. Not only were the ads unbearable, but the shows I cared about were never on at the time I wanted to watch them.

At this point, I use various online services (sadly reliant on Flash) to watch the shows I want to watch. Unfortunately, many of them still contain ads-- I'd happily pay the providers to not interrupt their shows with that nonsense. Alas, certain shows (such as the new Doctor Who series) are not accessible in that fashion, so I will have to wait many months until they are released on DVD.

Of course, Doctor Who is available on (probably illegal) bittorrent, but I don't consider that an option (since I can't buy a UK TV licence, which I would be willing to do for that purpose.) I've e-mailed BBC America asking specifically to buy a licence to download their shows: `I give you money, you don't sure me for bittorrenting your stuff.' (Yes, it sounds a bit like protection money.) Unfortunately they never got back to me.

I find it unlikely that content providers have not realised the demand by people like me. I've heard rumours that iTunes sells TV shows these days; could it be that the majority of people are flocking to these proprietary platforms, preventing a truly open solution from manifesting?

TV? (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057362)

Are there any good TV shows? I've watched some Lost episodes when a hawt girl said she loved it, but mostly it's just an incremental improvement over that perpetual mystery garbage the X-Files popularized.

I'd say the last good TV show I saw was B5, although Buffy was alright if you skipped al the crap episodes. I'm sure there must be good one season shows like Earth 2 and American Gothic, but I've not noticed them.

I've mostly watched movies on the internet since I've been living in countries like Germany and France where movies are dubbed.. and England where the women are too fat to invite to a movie.

You know, every day some friend forwards me some really awesome youtube video. I also really liked the Daily Show when I remember it. etc.

I'm definitely not the future of television of course. lol I'd hazard a guess though more people are valuing those daily youtube clips more and more highly. I'll bet they notice when the available television shows just don't stand up to :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN0254u56Mc

who here watches TV anyways ? (1)

dx40sh (1773338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057382)

I haven't owned a TV since ~2006. I do watch it rarely when at friends' houses/flats, but I can't say I've missed it. If there's a show I really want to see, I generally watch it on my computer [sans commercials, etc]. I'd think that's not particularly unusual among /. readers.

There is a lesson here (1)

grizdog (1224414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057392)

Actually several lessons, none of which are likely to be learned. But the one I was thinking of is that you can't just rest on your laurels. The boom in cable took place in the 70s and 80s, and all the cable companies thought once they got the cable installed they would have a monopoly and wouldn't have to work again. The satellite companies rained on their parade, but the fact was they had that wire into everyone's house, and they didn't have to do very much to make money. Several times there were ideas floated about letting the customers buy services directly from the creators, paying the cable company a fee as a common carrier. The cable companies got that shot down, and went back to their comfortable life of doing almost nothing.

As ought to be clear by now, they had a huge, underutilized asset with a line into so many homes. They didn't care, as long as the money flowed in, but now they have been overtaken by events. The service that they offer is not only overpriced, but outmoded. Their network of cables will allow them to survive, but they ignored the new technology for many years and now they are paying the price.

Screw TV (4, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057402)

At the risk of being "That Guy" [theonion.com] , I don't have a TV and I don't really have any plans of getting one. My old roommate just moved out, and the cable was in his name. I just ordered service (currently, I'm leaching Wifi... sucks), which despite the fact I have gear and am already wired, apparently they have to send someone to me or some crap. Point is, despite the fact they really wanted to bundle me TV and digital phone service (I have a cell phone, why do I need a 'land line', especially if it'll go down if the power is out?), I had no reason to bite.

I think that as younger generations come up and are the ones making these types of purchasing decisions, it's going to be more and more common to just "do without" "old people" entertainment. The few things I want on cable, I can get on Hulu, or on southparkstudios.com the day after the episode was on TV. I use the internet to keep in touch with my friends that don't live near by, group coordinate stuff with those who do, get my the news that I don't get off of NPR in the car, obtain my software updates, work on personal projects, and sometimes work from home. I don't really need TV and I don't want it. Hell, I think if my parents' generation realized that they can get the weather on the internet without having to weight until "the eights", they'd probably ditch cable, too.

Of course, that means that the service providers aren't going to let "network neutrality" ever happen, aren't going to stop doing stuff like DNS hijacking if they can get away with it, and advertisers are going to continue polluting the tubes. Why? 'Cause they have to make up the revenue somehow, and if we're not watching TV, they'll move to where we are.

I was kind of shocked (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057408)

I live overseas so I'm out of the loop on this whole thing. I was shocked to see my mom's Comcast bill the last time I was home - $149 + taxes and fees. Every month! Sure, she gets a lot of channels and internet, but still.

As an aside, as someone who "doesn't watch TV" (and yet I don't shout it from the rooftops every chance I get) I always look forward to coming back to America, cracking open a beer, settling into an easy chair, and getting reacquainted with an old friend called "Television". I have about 24-48 hours of bliss before the shows start to repeat. After that, I just get kind of disgusted with the whole thing. I get even more disgusted with myself for turning on the TV even though I well know that there's nothing on. I suppose if I got into it I could use the DVR to record the shows I want, but without flipping the channels how will you discover more shows? There's also the fact that these Discovery channel type shows tend to use the same formula over and over again. I'm not even mentioning the gigantic noise machine that is advertising. Anyhow, I look forward to watching TV and I look forward even more to getting on the plane to return abroad and leave all the pandemonium behind.

No TV service for 3 years so far: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057410)

I don't miss it one bit. Although, it does make it kinda boring when guests come over.

My setup: Better than a TV with a TiVo. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057416)

I think everyone here has his small old Linux home server running somewhere.
So you can implement the following setup:
1. eztv.it has a feature to generate a RSS feed with torrents out of any TV show.
2. mldonkey is a headless edonkey/bittorrent/kad/overnet/etc client that can take rss feeds.
3. You need a small script, run via cron, to check for new entries in the feed, and add them to mldonkey. (The feature to integrate it is planned, but they need developers.)
4. mldonkey downloads the files, even while your main computer is off, and you are away or sleeping.
5. Configure it, to send you a e-mail when a file is done.
6. Use sshfs-fuse (or something else) to mount the server’s incoming directory to your main computer.
7. And best of all: Get a 3x2m projector and dolby digital 5.1 sound system, an play it trough them at the exact time you want to.
Of course any other headless torrent client will do too. (You could even use elinks, which has a torrent client and a text interface, which you could control with a bash script. ;)

I have added all the shows I watch, and the episodes just pop up in my mail client. I have to do absolutely nothing. :)

Re:My setup: Better than a TV with a TiVo. (1)

RoadNotTaken (1702106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057520)

mod up

Re:My setup: Better than a TV with a TiVo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057540)

I think everyone here has his small old Linux home server running somewhere.
So you can implement the following setup:
1. eztv.it has a feature to generate a RSS feed with torrents out of any TV show.
2. mldonkey is a headless edonkey/bittorrent/kad/overnet/etc client that can take rss feeds.
3. You need a small script, run via cron, to check for new entries in the feed, and add them to mldonkey. (The feature to integrate it is planned, but they need developers.)
4. mldonkey downloads the files, even while your main computer is off, and you are away or sleeping.
5. Configure it, to send you a e-mail when a file is done.
6. Use sshfs-fuse (or something else) to mount the server’s incoming directory to your main computer.
7. And best of all: Get a 3x2m projector and dolby digital 5.1 sound system, an play it trough them at the exact time you want to.
Of course any other headless torrent client will do too. (You could even use elinks, which has a torrent client and a text interface, which you could control with a bash script. ;)

I have added all the shows I watch, and the episodes just pop up in my mail client. I have to do absolutely nothing. :)

You left out:

8. Get a letter from the content creator of your choice threatening a lawsuit unless you pay $2000. ...I'd say it's hardly worth the risk for the quality of shows you are getting for free.

I've never had cable... (2, Interesting)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057444)

Now, I'm a person who loves good TV. However, cable has never made sense for me, because I don't watch TV on a schedule. Even back when Firefly was on, if my girlfriend had amorous activities in mind, I would regretfully have to catch up on the missed episode later.

Up until recently, I was combining broadcast TV (I watched a lot of syndicated TV like the Simpsons and various sitcoms) with DVDs and the Internet. Then the government helpfully killed my TV, the digital box I bought (in part with YOUR TAX DOLLARS) never really worked well enough for me to use it. Currently, the only channel my TV picks up is the Nintendo Channel (my Xbox 360 is hooked to a computer monitor).

The only show I really make it a point to catch these days is Breaking Bad which I'm subscribed to through Amazon's Unbox (normally I'd wait for the DVD, but someone at work will spoil the episode for me if I don't watch it the morning after it airs.). By the way, I'm aware of the negatives of Amazon's Unbox service, but it works for my narrow use.

Now, of course, this is not to say I've never mooched off of anyone's cable, as my parents can attest, but since I've been moved out I've never gotten cable or satellite in my home.

Why would I when I can watch just about anything I want to whenever I want to on the Internet? I'm serious, it's rare I can't find somewhere to watch something online nowadays.

Mac mini HTPC = perfect solution (1)

RoadNotTaken (1702106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057454)

I hooked up my Mac mini to my 42" flatscreen and this has basically replaced cable and a normal computer for me. I sit on my couch with my wireless keyboard and either surf the web, skype, or watch Netflix/Hulu/etc.

Interestingly everyone that comes over and sees the set-up wants it for themselves. It still takes *a little* geek savvy to install a system like this, but not for long. Once people get more exposure to this sort of thing they'll never look back.

It's much more enjoyable to watch TV-shows via Hulu/Netflix than it is once a week with long adverts, anyway.

Re:Mac mini HTPC = perfect solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057484)

Same here - we are still buying 16Mbps internet from Comcast, but cut out the cable TV out of it. Having mac mini is awesome for watching shows.

The only issue I found is that wireless keyboards are not very good at longer range, and have to be physically moved closer to the Mac Mini to be operational.

  Any advice on a stronger than average wireless keyboard + mouse are appreciated.

Re:Mac mini HTPC = perfect solution (1)

RoadNotTaken (1702106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057614)

Yeah the keyboard might be the weakest link. I don't find range to be an issue, but there is a slight latency and I get a lot more typos for some reason. It would be a pain to use for extensive coding or word-processing, but for e-mail/chat/etc it's fine.

I use an Adesso SlimTouch [google.com] which has a built-in touchpad, which was the killer-feature I was looking for. Overall I'm very happy with it. It's a lot like using a laptop because I can sit-back on the couch and use it without needing a separate mouse (which requires a table/desk of some sort).

It's the economy stupid (2, Insightful)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057466)

People are cutting out non-essentials so they can get out of debt or simply be financially secure. An extra $71 on a $150K mortgage will cut years off the time it takes to pay it back and save thousands of dollars.

If we didn't get cable forced on us through our HOA (at $8 a month, a steal) we wouldn't have it. We have NetFlix and the internet for watching movies and shows. We're getting rid of our landline to save $25 a month that we don't need to be spending. We have MagicJack, Tracfones and a company provided cell-phone.

All the money we're saving is being snowballed onto debts which are quickly disappearing. Once we're out of debt then we can decide which luxuries we'd like to have.

We did. (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057470)

My family dropped cable TV service a couple of weeks ago. We're probably not typical, though. We never had cable TV until our kids got to be about 9 and 12, and then they said they really wanted it, so we got it. It was a novelty at first, but then they lost interest. Since we weren't watching more than an hour a month, we decided there was no need to keep paying the bill. I think flash games and internet chat take the place of TV for them. Rising prices were a contributing factor, but we probably would have stopped even if prices had stayed the same.

No Cable for 10+ Years (1)

rliden (1473185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057474)

We haven't had cable in our house for 10+ years now. The local cable company, Charter, is really expensive and doesn't offer internet service. Our telco, CenturyTel, offers the only available internet (10Mbit DSL) but their TV offering is a partnership with Dish Network and that's a deal breaker.

Recently we found out we could watch NetFlix through our Wii for $9/month. We can watch a lot of the BBC programming we love and a ton of movies. The user has control over what and when they watch programming. Not everything is available for streaming but more and more seems to be added all the time. This is how cable should have been all along. Now if only the services of NetFlix and Hulu could be combined it would be perfect.

NHL did it for me. (1)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057476)

As soon as the Boxee Box comes out and I get some feedback on how the NHL center Ice package ($80/year) looks over a decent connection, I am dumping everything else.

Hmmm (1)

digitalnoise615 (1145903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057498)

Yeah, I'm just not buying this.

Comcast, for one, added 599,000 video, high-speed internet, and voice subscribers in the first quarter of 2010 AND beat all of the analyst's predictions on profit. If this study were true, that wouldn't be the case.

Sources:

Comcast’s 1Q beats last year and analysts’ estimates [bizjournals.com]
Highlights From CMCSA's Q1 Conference Call [streetinsider.com]

HTPC + Hulu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057500)

I switched to Antenna + hulu almost 2 years ago. First it was a little more complicated to have shows load in hulu and use the media center for the other videos but now with hulu desktop, I have just mapped a button on my remote control to open up hulu desktop and that is 95% of my TV watching. I not even have the Antenna connected anymore (great picture quality) because hulu is so much nicer. It is like having a DVR that records almost everything. It will be interesting how it changes with hulu when you have to pair for some programming but at the moment a htpc and hulu desktop is a great combo.

I'm 22 (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057510)

and I associate TVs, cable and the like with the likes of Betamax, System 5, and floppy disks. Haven't owned or had easy access to a television since I went off to college when I was 18.

I'll probably be one of them soon ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057514)

One In Eight To Cut Cable and Satellite TV In 2010

I currently have AT&T U-Verse (having had Dish Network ... awesome service but I can't get it where I am now) and Comcast (blecch!) My current bill (not counting taxes, fees, etc.) is about $160/month. I dropped all the stupid movie channels (there's a vast wasteland for you) and went down to the mid-level tier on Internet speed (12 mbit/sec). I have one phone line, and two cable boxes (one is AT&T's DVR) and I pay the extra ten bucks for the high-definition channels (now that's a rip, so far as I'm concerned.) All in all, it's not a bad deal but all I really want is Internet and phone service. Unfortunately AT&T doesn't sell naked VDSL where I live, so I'm forced to buy the TV service. Comcast will sell just an Internet connection, but I don't want to go back to that schlock outfit. Ever.

Frankly, most of the movies we watch we get from Netflix. $16.95/month, never had a problem. in fact they actually lowered our fee a couple of times. I may just see if I can get basic DSL from SBC, along with a phone line, and survive on Netflix and broadcast TV. That would probably run me about $60-$70 per month, which would be a substantial savings. I could put the money towards a new motherboard.

I love my WebTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057522)

I canceled cable TV to conserve money. Drawing on a limited technical background, I hooked up an old PC to an old TV using an el cheapo VGA2RCA adapter and discovered the joy of Internet TV and ripped DVD's. Downloaded a decent on-screen keyboard and magnifier program, and now I'm a complete bed vegetable. Cool.

I watch Directv...sometimes (1)

MpVpRb (1423381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057552)

I like directv, but I find that I am watching less and less of it. So much is crap.

Here's what I want...Pay per view video on demand.

Let me explain further.

Pay per view must be cheap enough that I don't really need to think about it too much...say 25 cents per show..

Absolutely no commercials!..Not even one!

Content should include every show that has ever been produced in the history of video, with good indexing and search

Yeah...I know it's a fantasy...but it would be cool

And no, I don't want to watch it on my computer.

Tv Torrents (1)

Psychotic_Wrath (693928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057558)

I'm suprised nobody has mentioned tvtorrents.com It is a registration only website and it keeps track of how much you upload so that you can't be a leech. This makes downloads go MUCH faster. I really like tvtorrents. They have a very comprehensive list of tv shows.

Cancelled 2 years ago... (1)

puppetman (131489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057564)

And have probably saved $2000 in after-tax income. I stream hockey from web-sites, or over-the-air, and torrent the few shows we watch. We have a popcorn hour media tank for playing content on the tv, both high-def and standard dev.

Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057566)

When the company providing internet service is the same as the company providing cable, do you really think they will be ok with users dropping the cable service to obtain the same material over the internet medium?

Ex:$30 for internet + $30 for cable = $60 to Comcast
If I can get everything I want from cable over the internet, I'm going to remove my cable service.
$30 for internet + $0 for cable = $30 to Comcast. Users are getting the same amount of material for half the price. Result: Comcast will increase the cost of internet service or decrease the bandwidth cap so that legitimate users won't have enough to watch the material they want, forcing them to purchase cable again.

too bad that's where hi-speed comes from... (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057568)

Every hi-speed internet outfit that isn't hella expensive around here requires you to order the TV portion as well, otherwise they charge you substantially more. So, I ordered tv and internet, and cancelled tv 31 days later. Doing so made my internet connection cheaper per month (with no promotional period), and made the installation free. I would have otherwise had to pay $250 for installation. I point-blank told the person I was going to cancel the tv service after a month and a day, and could they please just spare everyone the effort and not charge me installation, but...maybe my cleavage isn't good enough, cause he wasn't biting.

Pass the Douche to the left hand side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32057586)

Not to pull the standard "I don't wtch tv" douche thing, but...

For the cost of cable for a year, I can pick up a pretty decent (insert hobby of choice here) guitar.

At the end of the year, I have something tangible that I could at least re-sell if I wanted (or upgrade) and many hours of entertainment.

With cable I have zip.

Cable is not the best value of my entertainment dollar.

Don't miss it (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057592)

I'll join the parade... gave up DirecTV years ago and never looked back. I can find just about all the shows I want to watch on the Internet for free, not to mention a ton of non-US stuff that would *never* get to see on cable or satellite. Every once in awhile I miss being able to sit down and channel surf when I'm bored, but it ain't worth $75 a month. And really, even if I had cable how many channels would I watch outside of the networks? 3? Maybe 4? And of those it's usually for 1 or 2 shows each. It's not worth the money. And it's worse if you have a hi-def TV cause it then costs even more to get the hi-def channels. Want a DVR? Ding, even more money. And let's not forget the $15-$20 in taxes, fees, and surcharges that's on top of the service. So your bill for the $60 basic cable tier is gonna be at least $75. Using the Internet I get 720p shows and the freedom to watch whenever I want at no additional cost. Pure win.

Maybe if they unbundled the packages and let us pay only for the channels we want with no surcharge for hi-def and DVR service I'd reconsider, LOL, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen!

Not Much TV at All (1)

AtomicSnarl (549626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057608)

Comcast here in central Pa has just swapped over to all digital, so the basic package went from the 8 local channels and another 20+ bleed-overs I could see for free to just the locals. So.. $10 for basic and $40 for InnnerTubes, or cough up another $60+ for extended basic and a box? Nah... I've got Hulu, etc if I really want to see something.

Ok -- I'll miss MythBusters.. just have to wait for the streams..

Shows on DVD (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057618)

Not only that, but with all the amount of shows on DVD, I just have a PC connected to my TV, I rip all my shows to that, and use it like a jukebox. It's worth it to be one or two seasons behind what's on TV, since I don't have to watch any commercials, there are no bugs at the bottom corner and no slide-in ads, I don't have to worry about DVRs because I can pause it, and I can choose what to watch when I want. For everything else, there's PBS. Plus, I can easily transcode any of the videos on that TV PC to play on a portable device.

Purchasing shows on disc to own them permanently instead of paying on-going cable/satellite bills is a lot more worth it to me. I also get show commentaries which I like, and they rip fine to an MKV container.

Lol... (0, Troll)

Bentov (993323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32057624)

I know this is /. but WTF? Do any of you every have a lady friend over who might want to watch tv, and not sit in separate chairs in front of the computer? Quit being cheap asses, get a tv, get cable, and for god's sake, get laid once in awhile. Trust me, spending your time making a woman cum is much more enjoyable then spending your time trying to find free/cheap tv. $71? are you fucking kidding me? Are you all that fucking cheap?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?