(08-08-2017 01:08 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 08:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  No that wasn't the point. Everyone and their mom has streaming options .... for those who already subscribe to a bundle. That's nothing.

The major leap forward, as has always been prophasized by the zealots, are standalone streams that anyone with an internet connection can subscribe to, independent of a bundle subscription. This leap has largely yet to materialize, save HBO and Showtime.

Lastly, why are you making up that a channel would have to cease operating its traditional channel in order to also provide that same channel as a standalone stream? No one has ever said that and highly doubtful that would be the case. HBO and Showtime didn't stop being offered on cable/sat simply because they offer standalone streaming.

The price for HBO's standalone streaming service if $15 a month. By the time you start signing up for standalone sports channels, kids channels, Netflix. You would have been better off just getting cable.

I have made many posts on this topic. The only way and I mean the only way you can save money by cutting the cord is by meeting one of two conditions:

1. You are willing to sacrifice variety and quality to save money.
2. You are either borrowing someone's login for other services or illegally streaming things.

My sophomore year of college cutting the cord went great for me. I borrowed my mom's HBO, Starz, and ESPN3 login. And I only paid for DSL internet, Netflix, and Hulu. This put me at $40 or so and was great for me. But this was only true because I was borrowing what someone else was paying for.

Throw HBO and something else into that picture and it's as expensive as cable.

Thats not true. Cord cutting works great for people who arent especially picky about what they watch or for people who only watch a few channels. Get something likve Sony VUE, an antenna for OTA local channels, and maybe a couple of add on services like Netwflix, HBO, and Hulu---and you got pretty decent TV. The thing is, you can cater that package to your desires and budget and you dont get hit for an extra fee for every HD cable box you have in the home. If you have more than 1 TV---those extra monthy cable box fees add up fast. I have 9 in my house---thats an extra $80 a month right there. You can fashion a decent streaming package for just the extra cable box fee's I pay ATT-Uverse every month. All I have to do is put a Roko on every TV and Im good (and I have already done that anyway).

Cord cutting doesnt work well for people who want to see everything as it comes out and who are hooked on sports. Thats my problem. I want to see AAC games, so I need CBS-Sports Network, which isnt offered by many streaming services. Worse yet, the local Rocket and Astros games are only available on the Root RSN---which has no streaming option anywhere that I am aware of.

If your internet is provided by a company that also provides TV service, dumping the TV for just straight internet will be an automatic increase in internet price.

And I highly doubt you have enough bandwidth for all nine TV's to be streaming at the same time -- though that is hardly a practical issue for most people.


If switching from a cable/sat channel bundle to a streaming channel bundle works for you and your situation, like I said, more power to you but you're not cutting any cords.

(08-08-2017 02:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If your internet is provided by a company that also provides TV service, dumping the TV for just straight internet will be an automatic increase in internet price.

And I highly doubt you have enough bandwidth for all nine TV's to be streaming at the same time -- though that is hardly a practical issue for most people.


If switching from a cable/sat channel bundle to a streaming channel bundle works for you and your situation, like I said, more power to you but you're not cutting any cords.

Bandwidth isnt really a big issue as there are only 4 people in the family.

(08-08-2017 08:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lastly, why are you making up that a channel would have to cease operating its traditional channel in order to also provide that same channel as a standalone stream? No one has ever said that and highly doubtful that would be the case. HBO and Showtime didn't stop being offered on cable/sat simply because they offer standalone streaming.

Easy there

All I was trying to do was give my take on what I see CBS doing.

However, I do think that cable providers would drop CBS SN or at least reduce carriage fees if CBS sold it directly to consumers

Wouldn't need to drop it completely. Could put it on a "sports package" that reduces carriage payments to just the subscribers of that extra channel tier (very few).

(08-08-2017 02:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:08 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 08:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  No that wasn't the point. Everyone and their mom has streaming options .... for those who already subscribe to a bundle. That's nothing.

The major leap forward, as has always been prophasized by the zealots, are standalone streams that anyone with an internet connection can subscribe to, independent of a bundle subscription. This leap has largely yet to materialize, save HBO and Showtime.

Lastly, why are you making up that a channel would have to cease operating its traditional channel in order to also provide that same channel as a standalone stream? No one has ever said that and highly doubtful that would be the case. HBO and Showtime didn't stop being offered on cable/sat simply because they offer standalone streaming.

The price for HBO's standalone streaming service if $15 a month. By the time you start signing up for standalone sports channels, kids channels, Netflix. You would have been better off just getting cable.

I have made many posts on this topic. The only way and I mean the only way you can save money by cutting the cord is by meeting one of two conditions:

1. You are willing to sacrifice variety and quality to save money.
2. You are either borrowing someone's login for other services or illegally streaming things.

My sophomore year of college cutting the cord went great for me. I borrowed my mom's HBO, Starz, and ESPN3 login. And I only paid for DSL internet, Netflix, and Hulu. This put me at $40 or so and was great for me. But this was only true because I was borrowing what someone else was paying for.

Throw HBO and something else into that picture and it's as expensive as cable.

Thats not true. Cord cutting works great for people who arent especially picky about what they watch or for people who only watch a few channels. Get something likve Sony VUE, an antenna for OTA local channels, and maybe a couple of add on services like Netwflix, HBO, and Hulu---and you got pretty decent TV. The thing is, you can cater that package to your desires and budget and you dont get hit for an extra fee for every HD cable box you have in the home. If you have more than 1 TV---those extra monthy cable box fees add up fast. I have 9 in my house---thats an extra $80 a month right there. You can fashion a decent streaming package for just the extra cable box fee's I pay ATT-Uverse every month. All I have to do is put a Roko on every TV and Im good (and I have already done that anyway).

Cord cutting doesnt work well for people who want to see everything as it comes out and who are hooked on sports. Thats my problem. I want to see AAC games, so I need CBS-Sports Network, which isnt offered by many streaming services. Worse yet, the local Rocket and Astros games are only available on the Root RSN---which has no streaming option anywhere that I am aware of.

Netflix - 7.99
HBO - 15.99
Hulu 7.99
AT&T 50 meg internet - $40.00

So for those four things alone you are already looking at 72 dollars. And that's no ESPN, Disney Channel, etc. You throw on the cost of getting a streaming option for sports and you are at $95.00 and you still don't get many of the basic cable plan channels.

When you could just pay AT&T $80 for cable and internet. And if you have a family of four good luck.

I cut the chord two years ago. I have TVs in 4 rooms and was paying $160 a month to a satellite company including device rental. I moved to Sling which started at $25 but has grown to $40 with new channels selected. In addition I have Netflix and Hulu (roughly $20 combined). We also have Amazon Prime which is of little use to us. Finally, I added an antenna for OTA. I think I can get rid of Hulu as we dont watch this much. Total spend is $60 a month - a $100 savings. My biggest concern was if the kids could adapt. There were no issues. In fact, nearly 100% of my daughters viewing is on a device now. Out in the yard, in the car on trips, etc. The kids actually have more content at their disposal. I live out of market for my college and pro football team and was able to watch almost all games last two seasons. I bought MLB mid season for $20 and can watch all games. I did not even have this with satellite. In other words, I have changed my opinion and am a believer in cutting the chord. I could not be talked into going back to satellite or cable.

CBS will need inventory.

When is that B1G contract up?

(08-09-2017 06:21 AM)coog1927 Wrote:  I cut the chord two years ago. I have TVs in 4 rooms and was paying $160 a month to a satellite company including device rental. I moved to Sling which started at $25 but has grown to $40 with new channels selected. In addition I have Netflix and Hulu (roughly $20 combined). We also have Amazon Prime which is of little use to us. Finally, I added an antenna for OTA. I think I can get rid of Hulu as we dont watch this much. Total spend is $60 a month - a $100 savings. My biggest concern was if the kids could adapt. There were no issues. In fact, nearly 100% of my daughters viewing is on a device now. Out in the yard, in the car on trips, etc. The kids actually have more content at their disposal. I live out of market for my college and pro football team and was able to watch almost all games last two seasons. I bought MLB mid season for $20 and can watch all games. I did not even have this with satellite. In other words, I have changed my opinion and am a believer in cutting the chord. I could not be talked into going back to satellite or cable.

Same here. I had DirecTV for twenty years and ditched it last January for Amazon Firesticks with Sling. That works just fine for me. I pay $40/mo. I was paying over $160 for DirecTV.

I don't regret the move at all, quite the contrary.

(08-09-2017 06:21 AM)coog1927 Wrote:  I cut the chord two years ago. I have TVs in 4 rooms and was paying $160 a month to a satellite company including device rental. I moved to Sling which started at $25 but has grown to $40 with new channels selected. In addition I have Netflix and Hulu (roughly $20 combined). We also have Amazon Prime which is of little use to us. Finally, I added an antenna for OTA. I think I can get rid of Hulu as we dont watch this much. Total spend is $60 a month - a $100 savings. My biggest concern was if the kids could adapt. There were no issues. In fact, nearly 100% of my daughters viewing is on a device now. Out in the yard, in the car on trips, etc. The kids actually have more content at their disposal. I live out of market for my college and pro football team and was able to watch almost all games last two seasons. I bought MLB mid season for $20 and can watch all games. I did not even have this with satellite. In other words, I have changed my opinion and am a believer in cutting the chord. I could not be talked into going back to satellite or cable.

You are not being very honest with this post. First let's just go over everything you say you have. Hulu, Netflix, Sling, Amazon Prime, MLB, and unless your internet comes from oxygen you also have that.

Internet - $40 (probably more since you have kids)
Hulu $8
Netflix $11
Sling $40
MLB $20

You are most likely paying 119 for all of that. While that is for sure better than DirecTV it's not a better price than getting cable. AT&T Uverse for example has an internet+cable package for $80 in your area (I just checked). Add Netflix into that cost and you are getting twice as much content as you are now.

(08-09-2017 07:21 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 06:21 AM)coog1927 Wrote:  I cut the chord two years ago. I have TVs in 4 rooms and was paying $160 a month to a satellite company including device rental. I moved to Sling which started at $25 but has grown to $40 with new channels selected. In addition I have Netflix and Hulu (roughly $20 combined). We also have Amazon Prime which is of little use to us. Finally, I added an antenna for OTA. I think I can get rid of Hulu as we dont watch this much. Total spend is $60 a month - a $100 savings. My biggest concern was if the kids could adapt. There were no issues. In fact, nearly 100% of my daughters viewing is on a device now. Out in the yard, in the car on trips, etc. The kids actually have more content at their disposal. I live out of market for my college and pro football team and was able to watch almost all games last two seasons. I bought MLB mid season for $20 and can watch all games. I did not even have this with satellite. In other words, I have changed my opinion and am a believer in cutting the chord. I could not be talked into going back to satellite or cable.

Same here. I had DirecTV for twenty years and ditched it last January for Amazon Firesticks with Sling. That works just fine for me. I pay $40/mo. I was paying over $160 for DirecTV.

I don't regret the move at all, quite the contrary.

DirecTV is a rip off but my goodness how do you guys end up with these massive bills? I pay less money than that for Gigabit Fiber internet, HBO, Starz, a DVR, and every sports channel imaginable. And have the option of streaming live TV from tablets/phones.

It's just mind boggling, Trojan. I agree

People on here who preach to the choir of (fake) cord cutting, by switching their channel bundle from cable/sat to streaming (Sling, etc.), always complain about their $200+/mo bill.

It's like ..... dude, did you have 17 HD DVR boxes in your house??

My Direct TV bill is $90 with 2 DVRs and 3 receivers. It's the middle package, get all the channels I need including all the sports channels that my teams play on. Very happy with my package.

(08-09-2017 08:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's just mind boggling, Trojan. I agree

People on here who preach to the choir of (fake) cord cutting, by switching their channel bundle from cable/sat to streaming (Sling, etc.), always complain about their $200+/mo bill.

It's like ..... dude, did you have 17 HD DVR boxes in your house??

I had 5 DirectV boxes.

(08-09-2017 08:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's just mind boggling, Trojan. I agree

People on here who preach to the choir of (fake) cord cutting, by switching their channel bundle from cable/sat to streaming (Sling, etc.), always complain about their $200+/mo bill.

It's like ..... dude, did you have 17 HD DVR boxes in your house??

I had six. Now, I have none.

If you are willing/able to negotiate and go through with switching providers you can get a very good deal with traditional cable/satellite. My mom got 4 room w/ DVR on all of them from Directv for under $100 month after taxes/fees. I believe the list price was $80. Now that is a promo price for 1 year. Year 2 goes up a little and after year 2 she will have to negotiate and possibly switch again. So for her this was clearly cheaper than cord cutting.

Where many people get tripped up is with their internet bill. Many people have 1 legitimate option and if you try to get that option without a bundle you will be paying out the nose. My mom for example is paying $65/month for just internet from Spectrum and that is her only legitimate option. If Spectrum would have given her the promo bundle they were offering everyone else she wouldn't have switched. But since she was a current customer they wanted her to pay full price and thus they lost a cable subscriber. Her DirecTV/Spectrum interent combo was cheaper than going full Spectrum for all services.

If you are cord cutting and paying over $100/month in internet and streaming packages combined you could probably switch to a promo cable/satellite bundle and be paying about the same if not less during the promo period. If you have an option for standalone internet under $50/month than you can save a good bit via cutting the cable cord.

Good post, solo. Yes, internet service is an essential key to all of this. And much of the country has few options for high-speed (really, what should be called "standard" service in today's world) outside of a company that also offers TV and/or landline phone services. I don't agree that going full cell/wireless is a viable/comparable alternative, at this time, to landline internet service.

In my not so humble opinion, (high speed) internet service should be about like electricity service. That's how it should be run, and that's how it should be built out, across the nation ... including any and all rural areas. It should cost $40-50/month for 100Mbit service, anywhere you live in the country. But that is simply a dream, at this time.

(08-09-2017 11:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my not so humble opinion, (high speed) internet service should be about like electricity service. That's how it should be run, and that's how it should be built out, across the nation ... including any and all rural areas. It should cost $40-50/month for 100Mbit service, anywhere you live in the country. But that is simply a dream, at this time.

My electric co-op is the internet provider for our area. It turned a rural area into one that has the same or better internet service as Kansas City or St. Louis.

That is awesome, MSB! Wish more and more would do the same .... but big teleco will fight it to the bitter, bitter death.

(08-09-2017 11:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Good post, solo. Yes, internet service is an essential key to all of this. And much of the country has few options for high-speed (really, what should be called "standard" service in today's world) outside of a company that also offers TV and/or landline phone services. I don't agree that going full cell/wireless is a viable/comparable alternative, at this time, to landline internet service.

In my not so humble opinion, (high speed) internet service should be about like electricity service. That's how it should be run, and that's how it should be built out, across the nation ... including any and all rural areas. It should cost $40-50/month for 100Mbit service, anywhere you live in the country. But that is simply a dream, at this time.

I agree with you

Glory glory hallelujah