Hulu and YouTube apparently have new ones. PS Vue has great feedback. They all have free trials. I'm thinking of going with a firebox versus a stick and will try a few to see what works best for me.

Sling TV and Direct's new service are just the cable companies like AT&T getting into the market themselves to make money off of the cord cutters they would otherwise lose $$ on.

(05-05-2017 08:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:16 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is just my opinion but I think you cord cutters are making a huge mistake.

I cut the cord two years ago and it was basically a long and torturous road to getting used to buffering, freezing, sharing programming, downloading countless apps rebooting, etc. etc.

You sound technologically illiterate and/or you have a horrible internet provider. You install apps in your phone? It's no different.

I'm very tech savvy and would rather just pay for one service to ensure I can watch a show at it's scheduled time rather than having to wait 24 hours during which time some idiot has revealed what happened.

Other than sports the next time I watch a show when it is first scheduled on a network will be the first time in like 5 years or so. I don't care when shows air. I could not even tell you what nights they air. I watch them when convenient for me or when I'm interested.

Have any of you guys used PLEX? You download the Plex server on your laptop/desktop and then connect your roku to your plex account. Allows you to watch shows that are normally only on the actual .com website of the provider on your Roku. We use it for CBS shows since $8 for CBS all access is overpriced.

(05-05-2017 07:55 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 08:13 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I've thought about it but for now, it's just too damn complicated. You need this for this channel, this for that channel, etc. I just do not have to time to research all that stuff. So, when someone comes up with a simple solution I'll be on board.

And here you have the only, actual motivation behind cord cutting: money.

People have nothing against cable/sat boxes with built in DVR. They work great and are easy to use.

They want exactly what they have now, in terms of technology and platform. They just want to pay less! And willing to get fewer channels in return.


Thus, skinny bundles kills cord cutting. Now we will see if cable/sat are smart enough to understand that.

was there any doubt that is the primary motivator? I think people in general are beginning to do a better job evaluating wants vs needs.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-05-2017 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is just my opinion but I think you cord cutters are making a huge mistake.

I cut the cord two years ago and it was basically a long and torturous road to getting used to buffering, freezing, sharing programming, downloading countless apps rebooting, etc. etc.

That was my experience.

(05-05-2017 08:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I'm very tech savvy and would rather just pay for one service to ensure I can watch a show at it's scheduled time rather than having to wait 24 hours during which time some idiot has revealed what happened.

Wow... so much angst by some....

1) It's not like I've never had problems with Comcast or Direct TV or whatever else, and wasted a day waiting on somebody to come do what I could have easily done myself if they had just sent me a new box... which also get cluttered etc if they are old... so the 'equipment' or 'streaming' complaint doesn't go away by sticking with them... you simply pay $5-10/month to lease the equipment rather than buy it. If you buy it, you pay more and then you sometimes have to replace it later as well. The planned obsolescence is lower because nobody leases roku, but it's still there.

2) There are plenty of services where you don't have to wait 24 hours to 'watch your show'.

3) skinny bundles are still selected by others, and in 99% of cases, you're still paying for something you don't want, and not getting or paying more to get what you want instead. Biggest reason I cut the cord is that I got tired of having to pay $30 more a month to get Dr Who because it wasn't included on the bundle that had every other channel I wanted (plus movies) and the only one that had it, I had to get 120 channels I didn't care about to get the one I did.

The REAL savings for me is that I pay for 1 set of services and use it in 5 locations for no additional cost. If I did that on comcast or direct tv or whomever, I'd have to have at least 3 and likely 5 accounts to get 'what I want' anywhere I want it.... meaning it wouldn't be $150/month, but $650/month for my son, daughter, boat, rv, home and cabin to all have 'what I want'.

Some people want convenience.
Some people want what they want.
My suggestion is use pc based services which means that you can watch them anywhere you are including in your car and the 'hardware' issues are all related to easily upgraded and inexpensively replaced equipment. I just don't see that you're any more likely to have internet than cable issues, or phone vs satellite issues.

(05-04-2017 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is just my opinion but I think you cord cutters are making a huge mistake.

I cut the cord two years ago and it was basically a long and torturous road to getting used to buffering, freezing, sharing programming, downloading countless apps rebooting, etc. etc.

Making? I cut the cord 7 years ago and I've never had the problems you describe. I can remember cable outages that lasted much longer, and were more frequent than any bandwidth- or device-related problems I've experienced with my Roku. A device that I haven't replaced since the original purchase and have used at two locations with different internet providers.

I'm sitting here wondering what the heck happened to you guys who willingly signed back up for cable.

(05-05-2017 08:24 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  I heard Hulu joined the party and it might be the best service yet.

From the initial reports I read, Hulu chose not to implement a "live TV guide grid" and instead uses its same on demand interface.

I prefer to have a grid with channels on one axis and time on the other.

If you're experiencing buffering, etc., you're also getting those same issues on the computer or phone either surfing the net or running an app of some type. I was an early converter to DirecTV and loved it for almost 2 decades but I've been without a cable or satellite TV connection for 2-3 years now and haven't looked back either. I think people's viewing habits change anyway - I'm just not interested in watching sports on TV like I was in my 20's and 30's.

My prediction is DirecTV and cable companies will be completely ala carte with 2-3 years. And the average bill for those customers will be half of what they are now. It's the only way they will survive.

(05-05-2017 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My suggestion is use pc based services which means that you can watch them anywhere you are including in your car and the 'hardware' issues are all related to easily upgraded and inexpensively replaced equipment.

That is your choice, and a valid choice.

But that is included with a cable subscription. Just because you have one cable box, on your main TV, doesn't mean you can't also use your login to authenticate apps to stream the content you've paid for via numerous other platforms.


And please don't pretend that paying for only the exact channel you want would be cheaper than a bundle. It would not be.

Comcast and Charter ink wireless truce to offset cord-cutting

Quote:Comcast and Charter Communications on Monday announced a wireless partnership, as the cable providers seek to add more services in a bid to reduce customer churn.

Reuters reported on Sunday that the companies were close to announcing an agreement that would speed up their entry into the highly competitive and over-saturated market for mobile service in the United States.

As part of the agreement, Charter and Comcast will not be able to make “material” transactions in the wireless space for a year without the other’s consent, Comcast said in a filing with regulators.

The material transactions may include acquisitions, investments or joint ventures that have a value of more than $200 million.

Comcast is moving into wireless as cable companies seek to offset customer attrition, as younger viewers shun high-priced subscriptions in favor of cheaper online options.

“(The partnership) will also enable us to provide more competition and drive costs down for consumers at a similar national scale as current wireless operators,” Charter Chief Executive Tom Rutledge said in a statement.

(05-05-2017 01:33 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is just my opinion but I think you cord cutters are making a huge mistake.

I cut the cord two years ago and it was basically a long and torturous road to getting used to buffering, freezing, sharing programming, downloading countless apps rebooting, etc. etc.

Making? I cut the cord 7 years ago and I've never had the problems you describe. I can remember cable outages that lasted much longer, and were more frequent than any bandwidth- or device-related problems I've experienced with my Roku. A device that I haven't replaced since the original purchase and have used at two locations with different internet providers.

I'm sitting here wondering what the heck happened to you guys who willingly signed back up for cable.

Maybe it's the Roku. I've heard lots of good things about them.

I personally had Two Fire sticks and one fire box. All of which would have to be reset by customer service calls until they admitted to me that they would eventually not work at all. This after 2 years.

(05-09-2017 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 01:33 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is just my opinion but I think you cord cutters are making a huge mistake.

I cut the cord two years ago and it was basically a long and torturous road to getting used to buffering, freezing, sharing programming, downloading countless apps rebooting, etc. etc.

Making? I cut the cord 7 years ago and I've never had the problems you describe. I can remember cable outages that lasted much longer, and were more frequent than any bandwidth- or device-related problems I've experienced with my Roku. A device that I haven't replaced since the original purchase and have used at two locations with different internet providers.

I'm sitting here wondering what the heck happened to you guys who willingly signed back up for cable.

Maybe it's the Roku. I've heard lots of good things about them.

I personally had Two Fire sticks and one fire box. All of which would have to be reset by customer service calls until they admitted to me that they would eventually not work at all. This after 2 years.

List of my streaming devices:
I have an OLD roku device -- I mean old like 1st generation. It won't upgrade to their recent interfaces/templates but it's still in use.

I have a Roku 2 which is now considered an old device, but it still takes upgrades.

I have a Roku Streaming Stick.

I also have an Amazon Fire streaming stick.

I have a Samsung Smart Home Theater.

I used to have a PS4 console that ran my theater room but I recently gave it to my youngest grandson.

I used to have a buffering problem with the OLD roku device when it was the only streaming player in the house. I also had AT&T DSL at the time.

I now have Comcast Xfinity which runs at a higher transfer speed than DSL. Since the switch I haven't had buffering issues at all regardless of device.


You might want to see what kind of transfer speed your internet service provides.

(05-09-2017 01:06 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 01:33 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 10:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is just my opinion but I think you cord cutters are making a huge mistake.

I cut the cord two years ago and it was basically a long and torturous road to getting used to buffering, freezing, sharing programming, downloading countless apps rebooting, etc. etc.

Making? I cut the cord 7 years ago and I've never had the problems you describe. I can remember cable outages that lasted much longer, and were more frequent than any bandwidth- or device-related problems I've experienced with my Roku. A device that I haven't replaced since the original purchase and have used at two locations with different internet providers.

I'm sitting here wondering what the heck happened to you guys who willingly signed back up for cable.

Maybe it's the Roku. I've heard lots of good things about them.

I personally had Two Fire sticks and one fire box. All of which would have to be reset by customer service calls until they admitted to me that they would eventually not work at all. This after 2 years.

List of my streaming devices:
I have an OLD roku device -- I mean old like 1st generation. It won't upgrade to their recent interfaces/templates but it's still in use.

I have a Roku 2 which is now considered an old device, but it still takes upgrades.

I have a Roku Streaming Stick.

I also have an Amazon Fire streaming stick.

I have a Samsung Smart Home Theater.

I used to have a PS4 console that ran my theater room but I recently gave it to my youngest grandson.

I used to have a buffering problem with the OLD roku device when it was the only streaming player in the house. I also had AT&T DSL at the time.

I now have Comcast Xfinity which runs at a higher transfer speed than DSL. Since the switch I haven't had buffering issues at all regardless of device.


You might want to see what kind of transfer speed your internet service provides.

Well I had Vivint which was the fastest thing they had out here before I switched to Spectrum.

Spectrum is now the fastest but I bundled with the cable and phone in order to get it.

Thus, I reattached the cord.

(05-06-2017 12:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My suggestion is use pc based services which means that you can watch them anywhere you are including in your car and the 'hardware' issues are all related to easily upgraded and inexpensively replaced equipment.

That is your choice, and a valid choice.

But that is included with a cable subscription. Just because you have one cable box, on your main TV, doesn't mean you can't also use your login to authenticate apps to stream the content you've paid for via numerous other platforms.


And please don't pretend that paying for only the exact channel you want would be cheaper than a bundle. It would not be.

Sure (to point 1) but it's far more expensive. I used to pay $180 for direct tv or comcast, and then I still need internet and computers and roku etc in order to access the streaming info, and I need that in 4-5 places. Now I pay about $50 for something far closer to the channels I want, and access it anywhere.

Of course, Comcast's MODEL is for you to have a box at every location, which means that if I wanted to take everything everywhere, I'd pay them $180 x 5 locations. I don't think they let you have 2 boxes at 2 different addresses yet, but they will I'm betting at some point.

BY FAR the best deal i have is my T-Mobile hotspot (though everyone else is joining in now and everyone else has better coverage). I can pay $35/month and in addition to 6gb of 'any data', you get unlimited streaming of Netflix, Pandora, Amazon Prime, DishAnywhere, dozens of streaming services... so rather than have to have internet at all my places, I just take my hotspot to those where it works.... plus HD antenna TV

I'm not really arguing with you (nor you with me). In fact, we're actually agreeing I think. My point is really that what makes this confusing is the myriad of options. Internet is getting cheaper and the 'cord' sites are trying to compete. They make it easy for you, and they charge you for being easy. The more varied your options are, the more sense cord cutting makes. Yes, the cords are more competitive today than they used to be, but they're still about (best i can tell) $100/month more expensive.

(05-06-2017 12:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  And please don't pretend that paying for only the exact channel you want would be cheaper than a bundle. It would not be.

A variation on HB's response: Yes, paying a la carte for most things is more expensive. But it's likely (a certainty, in my case) that you can find a smaller package from someone like Hulu or Sling that, while more *per channel* is still way under what even the cheapest cable bundle costs and provides way more value because it's almost entirely channels you want.

We cut the cord a couple years ago. I pay for Sling and Hulu. She pays for Netflix and Amazon. Antenna is free. We sub to HBO Now for GoT and Westworld for only the time they're on the air.

All in all, we save quite a bit. Considering we've always had Netflix and Amazon (even with cable), the only expenses are really Sling and Hulu. Those two total about $34 after taxes. Combined with internet, the total cost is $114. AT&T's DirecTV offer would be about $150/mo for the first year, and about $205-210 for the second year on.

We get all the local Rangers/Mavs/Stars losses and a handful of shows on Sling with DVR. Everything else is commercial free.

So I got the Mohu50 Leaf Antenna with the signal boost. Major mixed bag. No matter where I tried to hang it on the wall, I was lucky to get 6-15 channels (with 5 being some variant of that idiotic channel TBN) and zero networks. If I stick it outside the window, I got a MUCH better signal and my channels jumped up to about 48 or so. Even got a couple channels we don't have in our cable subscription. It can't be the trees around the house since putting it outside made a major difference.

So...do I simply return this and try a more powerful antenna in the attic, which means fiddle fvcking with a splitter and trying to snake cables thru my walls? This SUX.

ETA the antenna didn't even work on the downstairs TV at all, and I thought it was digital antenna ready. I knew this had to be too easy with getting 2 leaf antennas slapped to a wall and declaring victory...

(05-11-2017 02:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  So I got the Mohu50 Leaf Antenna with the signal boost. Major mixed bag. No matter where I tried to hang it on the wall, I was lucky to get 6-15 channels (with 5 being some variant of that idiotic channel TBN) and zero networks. If I stick it outside the window, I got a MUCH better signal and my channels jumped up to about 48 or so. Even got a couple channels we don't have in our cable subscription. It can't be the trees around the house since putting it outside made a major difference.

So...do I simply return this and try a more powerful antenna in the attic, which means fiddle fvcking with a splitter and trying to snake cables thru my walls? This SUX.

ETA the antenna didn't even work on the downstairs TV at all, and I thought it was digital antenna ready. I knew this had to be too easy with getting 2 leaf antennas slapped to a wall and declaring victory...

get an amplified antenna if you are going to be indoors

(05-09-2017 03:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  BY FAR the best deal i have is my T-Mobile hotspot (though everyone else is joining in now and everyone else has better coverage). I can pay $35/month and in addition to 6gb of 'any data', you get unlimited streaming of Netflix, Pandora, Amazon Prime, DishAnywhere, dozens of streaming services... so rather than have to have internet at all my places, I just take my hotspot to those where it works.... plus HD antenna TV

I understand your situation, with multiple physical addresses, and how expensive it would be to maintain separate landline accounts at each address. I agree that is not reasonable.

The idea of a mobile hotspot seems a bit ludicrous to me ... basically supplying a wifi router -- inherently not a mobile device -- with a mobile internet connection. But, in your situation, it seems to work for you. And the massive (infinite) advantage is that you only need one mobile account which gives you the same capacity and access at all your physical addresses.

Most people don't have that situation, though.

(05-09-2017 03:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm not really arguing with you (nor you with me). In fact, we're actually agreeing I think. My point is really that what makes this confusing is the myriad of options. Internet is getting cheaper and the 'cord' sites are trying to compete. They make it easy for you, and they charge you for being easy. The more varied your options are, the more sense cord cutting makes. Yes, the cords are more competitive today than they used to be, but they're still about (best i can tell) $100/month more expensive.

Fair enough.

At the very end of the day, the following still strikes me as something that should be true, but yet I'm not sure if it really is true or will end up being true: the amount of revenue being generated within the "entertainment ecosystem" should not change simply because technology changes.

(05-09-2017 03:49 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  still way under what even the cheapest cable bundle costs and provides way more value because it's almost entirely channels you want.

Why are the bundles where you live so expensive?

My bundle for Spectrum is 113 a month

(05-11-2017 03:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  My bundle for Spectrum is 113 a month

negotiate man!