(01-30-2020 04:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

I am down with that. If I can't skip commercials then I'm not paying.

Also, OTA content is hands down the highest quality in terms of quality and bandwidth coming to your screen. Dish is the lowest quality, cable isn't much better in our brave new DOCSIS 3.0 DSV era (though internet bandwidth is), and OTA is still hands down the best and a standard deviation better on audio and video.

Watch the Super Bowl OTA. Then tune it on Dish or Cable. You'll see the difference.

Wait till ATSC 3.0 gets in full swing with OTA 4K broadcasts.
I believe there are a few stations now that are broadcasting the current and the upcoming standard...probably in testing phase as the 3.0 standard will require new equipment for existing TV’s.
Once it gets nailed down, TV manufacturers will have the 3.0 receivers built in. There will be a simulcast for many years until the older TVs get replaced with the new ones.

(01-30-2020 07:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

I am down with that. If I can't skip commercials then I'm not paying.

I used to be down with it, but then last November (2018), Hulu had a deal for 99 cents a month for a year, but for their tier where you get commercials. I hated the idea of commercials but at 99 cents a month figured it was too good to pass up.

Turns out, I ended up watching a ton of Hulu content that year, and re-upped with Hulu this past November as part of a Disney bundle, because I found the commercials were actually a good thing - they allowed me to check my phone from time to time, something I do obsessively, without hitting the pause button.

Checking up on the phone. I have a hard time not leaving it at home. You are right. I see my kids doing this. Times have changed so much.

(01-31-2020 05:14 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

I am down with that. If I can't skip commercials then I'm not paying.

I used to be down with it, but then last November (2018), Hulu had a deal for 99 cents a month for a year, but for their tier where you get commercials. I hated the idea of commercials but at 99 cents a month figured it was too good to pass up.

Turns out, I ended up watching a ton of Hulu content that year, and re-upped with Hulu this past November as part of a Disney bundle, because I found the commercials were actually a good thing - they allowed me to check my phone from time to time, something I do obsessively, without hitting the pause button.

Checking up on the phone. I have a hard time not leaving it at home. You are right. I see my kids doing this. Times have changed so much.

Yeah, during the day I probably pick up my phone every 10 minutes or so. Even at night, allegedly relaxing and watching a show, I do the same. So it is hard for me to sit through movies and the like with no commercials as they do not naturally allow me to scratch that itch, LOL. The commercials give me a chance to do it "naturally", LOL.

Heck, when I go to see a movie at a public theater, I now usually find a back row seat with nobody around so I can periodically check my phone without disturbing anyone.

(01-30-2020 07:48 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Commercials are not going anywhere. NBC has revenue of ~$33 billion. To make that up they would need 550,000,000 subscribers at $5/month. Even if that were possible, they are never going to turn away BILLIONS of ad dollars.

Yeah. At best, you're probably stuck with ads on livecasts and maybe spared on archived content. At best.

Do these articles take into account streaming services like Sling TV or YouTube TV when they come up with these "under 80 million homes" numbers? If not, it's not accurate. TV streaming services account for millions of additional homes.

If they're just talking about traditional TV I guess it's technically accurate. But it feels like click bait to me knowing those channels can still be and are accessible in the homes they say are lost.

(01-31-2020 09:18 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Do these articles take into account streaming services like Sling TV or YouTube TV when they come up with these "under 80 million homes" numbers? If not, it's not accurate. TV streaming services account for millions of additional homes.

If they're just talking about traditional TV I guess it's technically accurate. But it feels like click bait to me knowing those channels can still be and are accessible in the homes they say are lost.

That was what I was going to ask. I do youtubetv primarily they carry all the sports channel. For example, I have AT&T highspeed but do my TV viewing through streaming. I actually get more sports channel streaming than I did with any cable package I paid for.

(01-30-2020 05:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Same reason. You want to watch it over the air for free? Go ahead. You want to watch it like it's not 1985, you pay.

Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

Then get ready to pay out the wazoo for the Platinum Premium option.

Fine. I DESPISE commercials. I pay for four streaming services:

1. Netflix
2. Amazon Prime
3. ESPN+
4. MLB.tv

MLB.tv has ads, the other three, not so much. I'd pay an extra $100 a year to get MLB.tv without ads. We don't have cable and watch a very limited amount of over the air TV. I just have no interest in being advertised at, and make a point of not purchasing things I have been forced to watch an ad for before videos online.

I cut the cord a long time ago. I always follow these threads to see who has changed their stance on this topic. I've seen a couple that once thought cord-cutters were "stupid" (for lack of a better word) to now defending how great YouTube TV is.

Not saying either side is right or wrong. Its interesting to see the change among people and I've learned some technology tips here along the way. I'm challenged in this area and I need all the help I can get.

(01-31-2020 12:13 PM)cubucks Wrote:  I cut the cord a long time ago. I always follow these threads to see who has changed their stance on this topic. I've seen a couple that once thought cord-cutters were "stupid" (for lack of a better word) to now defending how great YouTube TV is.

Not saying either side is right or wrong. Its interesting to see the change among people and I've learned some technology tips here along the way. I'm challenged in this area and I need all the help I can get.

It's also not either-or. For example, I have cable, a full array of channels that cost me $120 a month. But I also have Nexflix, Hulu, ESPN+, and Disney+ streaming, which is another $25 a month. And, I watch a lot of my cable channels "streaming" as well, because most of the cable channels have apps that allow you to watch on your phone or tablet if you are logged in to to your cable provider.

It's all about maximizing your value for the content you want, within your constraints. In principle, Youtube TV looks great to me, but (a) it lacks some channels that my wife wants, and (b) our local cable company has a near-monopoly on internet service in my small town, and If I cut the cord they would double my internet price, effectively wiping out any savings from streaming alone.

That latter is a big issue a lot of stream advocates overlook - streaming or cable, in both cases you first need internet access, so you have to factor the cost of the internet access in to your streaming costs.

(01-31-2020 12:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 12:13 PM)cubucks Wrote:  I cut the cord a long time ago. I always follow these threads to see who has changed their stance on this topic. I've seen a couple that once thought cord-cutters were "stupid" (for lack of a better word) to now defending how great YouTube TV is.

Not saying either side is right or wrong. Its interesting to see the change among people and I've learned some technology tips here along the way. I'm challenged in this area and I need all the help I can get.

It's also not either-or. For example, I have cable, a full array of channels that cost me $120 a month. But I also have Nexflix, Hulu, ESPN+, and Disney+ streaming, which is another $25 a month. And, I watch a lot of my cable channels "streaming" as well, because most of the cable channels have apps that allow you to watch on your phone or tablet if you are logged in to to your cable provider.

It's all about maximizing your value for the content you want, within your constraints. In principle, Youtube TV looks great to me, but (a) it lacks some channels that my wife wants, and (b) our local cable company has a near-monopoly on internet service in my small town, and If I cut the cord they would double my internet price, effectively wiping out any savings from streaming alone.

That latter is a big issue a lot of stream advocates overlook - streaming or cable, in both cases you first need internet access, so you have to factor the cost of the internet access in to your streaming costs.

Yep, very good points!

(01-31-2020 09:18 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Do these articles take into account streaming services like Sling TV or YouTube TV when they come up with these "under 80 million homes" numbers?

Yes. The data is from Nielsen and it counts any home that has the channel, no matter how the channel is delivered.

(01-31-2020 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 05:14 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:12 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  Fine, then don't show me commercials after I already had to pay for the privilege of watching your content.

I am down with that. If I can't skip commercials then I'm not paying.

I used to be down with it, but then last November (2018), Hulu had a deal for 99 cents a month for a year, but for their tier where you get commercials. I hated the idea of commercials but at 99 cents a month figured it was too good to pass up.

Turns out, I ended up watching a ton of Hulu content that year, and re-upped with Hulu this past November as part of a Disney bundle, because I found the commercials were actually a good thing - they allowed me to check my phone from time to time, something I do obsessively, without hitting the pause button.

Checking up on the phone. I have a hard time not leaving it at home. You are right. I see my kids doing this. Times have changed so much.

Yeah, during the day I probably pick up my phone every 10 minutes or so. Even at night, allegedly relaxing and watching a show, I do the same. So it is hard for me to sit through movies and the like with no commercials as they do not naturally allow me to scratch that itch, LOL. The commercials give me a chance to do it "naturally", LOL.

Heck, when I go to see a movie at a public theater, I now usually find a back row seat with nobody around so I can periodically check my phone without disturbing anyone.

I don't worry about theaters anymore. Wait a few months and it is on tv with my audio system. Don't miss a beat.

(02-01-2020 06:03 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 05:14 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 04:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I am down with that. If I can't skip commercials then I'm not paying.

I used to be down with it, but then last November (2018), Hulu had a deal for 99 cents a month for a year, but for their tier where you get commercials. I hated the idea of commercials but at 99 cents a month figured it was too good to pass up.

Turns out, I ended up watching a ton of Hulu content that year, and re-upped with Hulu this past November as part of a Disney bundle, because I found the commercials were actually a good thing - they allowed me to check my phone from time to time, something I do obsessively, without hitting the pause button.

Checking up on the phone. I have a hard time not leaving it at home. You are right. I see my kids doing this. Times have changed so much.

Yeah, during the day I probably pick up my phone every 10 minutes or so. Even at night, allegedly relaxing and watching a show, I do the same. So it is hard for me to sit through movies and the like with no commercials as they do not naturally allow me to scratch that itch, LOL. The commercials give me a chance to do it "naturally", LOL.

Heck, when I go to see a movie at a public theater, I now usually find a back row seat with nobody around so I can periodically check my phone without disturbing anyone.

I don't worry about theaters anymore. Wait a few months and it is on tv with my audio system. Don't miss a beat.

I get that, but I like the process of going out to a movie, it's something my wife and I enjoy to get out of the house and build an evening out around.

I signed up for AMC's A-List program, and pay $21 a month to see up to 3 movies a week. Last year, I saw 151 movies in theaters for a total cost of $250. Can't beat that, IMO, if you like going out to a movie.

(01-30-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the one thing we're going to find though will be I think we're going to find the streaming services really start to crack down on password sharing.

Yes. However, this service is marketed for its portability across devices. I don't know how you reconcile that unless you put a cap on the number of devices that can use it, or put further ID restrictions in place with devices receiving the stream.

Industry will find a way. Heck, I remember when people were fuming over Windows Vista and the original Kindle for how it bungled performance with its restrictive DRM and remote deletion. DRM is everywhere now, and quite the norm. You don't own ****.

We already have a way. It just has yet to be adopted out of concerns of privacy laws.

What I'm finding is ESPN is not allowing fans to get away with just one way to watch the game.

Basic Cable: $40 a month for ESPN/ESPN2/ESPN3
OTT TV Package: $40 a month for ESPNU/ESPN News
Streaming: $5 a month for ESPN+

MAC games for example a lot of them have been moved to ESPN3 which you can only get with a cable subscription.

What they need is something that is $20 dollars with all the ESPN channels included.

(02-01-2020 03:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What I'm finding is ESPN is not allowing fans to get away with just one way to watch the game.

Basic Cable: $40 a month for ESPN/ESPN2/ESPN3
OTT TV Package: $40 a month for ESPNU/ESPN News
Streaming: $5 a month for ESPN+

MAC games for example a lot of them have been moved to ESPN3 which you can only get with a cable subscription.

What they need is something that is $20 dollars with all the ESPN channels included.

What cable company has basic for $40?

Lowest package for me with Suddenlink is $60 and that is not including the boxes, taxes and the local channel fees and sports fees.

The biggest issue for me with cable and satellite is the charge for the boxes/DVR.

(02-01-2020 04:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 03:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What I'm finding is ESPN is not allowing fans to get away with just one way to watch the game.

Basic Cable: $40 a month for ESPN/ESPN2/ESPN3
OTT TV Package: $40 a month for ESPNU/ESPN News
Streaming: $5 a month for ESPN+

MAC games for example a lot of them have been moved to ESPN3 which you can only get with a cable subscription.

What they need is something that is $20 dollars with all the ESPN channels included.

What cable company has basic for $40?

Lowest package for me with Suddenlink is $60 and that is not including the boxes, taxes and the local channel fees and sports fees.

The biggest issue for me with cable and satellite is the charge for the boxes/DVR.

I don't know I was thinking as part of a double play internet/cable thing with a subsidized package.

(02-01-2020 03:47 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What I'm finding is ESPN is not allowing fans to get away with just one way to watch the game.

Basic Cable: $40 a month for ESPN/ESPN2/ESPN3
OTT TV Package: $40 a month for ESPNU/ESPN News
Streaming: $5 a month for ESPN+

MAC games for example a lot of them have been moved to ESPN3 which you can only get with a cable subscription.

What they need is something that is $20 dollars with all the ESPN channels included.

FWIW, ESPN3 is available in other ways too - if your internet provider pays fees to ESPN for it (which is the same as how you may get it with a cable TV subscription, as ESPN3 is not an actual cable channel), and on lots of streaming services like Sling and Youtube TV.

But some of the stuff that is on ESPN+ used to be on ESPN3.

People think ESPN has been the big bloated General Motors ossified and unable to keep up with changing markets and doomed to decline by streaming. In fact, one could argue they are playing the cable/streaming mix perfectly, or at least very well, to maximize revenue in a changing technological climate.

(02-01-2020 04:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  What cable company has basic for $40?

Lowest package for me with Suddenlink is $60 and that is not including the boxes, taxes and the local channel fees and sports fees.

The biggest issue for me with cable and satellite is the charge for the boxes/DVR.

I am unfamiliar with Satellite technology, but I'm well versed in how DOCSIS 3.0 and DSV works. It's impossible to not have to get a box to view cable these days. Let's set aside for a moment whether or not it's ok or should be illegal to force you to rent one instead of allowing you to buy one like with your home WiFi router. That's a whole 'nother issue. But fundamental to DOCSIS 3.0 being able to increase the effective bandwidth of a cable line to cable providers without having to actually trench a newer fatter line is that they don't sent data down the cable if it isn't being used. So the cable company has the big super fat cable of fiber optics and that carries EVERYTHING but it only goes to major distribution points. At those distribution points the end users are broken into chunks. Let's say there's a 200 home subdivision on its own chunk. If nobody in that subdivision is watching the History Channel (and let's hope they're not given that it is full of claptrap these days), they stop sending that channel down the cable to that entire chunk of homes. This then frees up the bandwidth that channel would have taken for higher internet speeds or more channels or both. But if somebody in that subdivision then changes to the History Channel (the poor fool), the converter box phones home to the distribution point and requests the channel and presto it is sent down the cable. So the channels actually being watched are sent down the cable in full quality, and whatever is left is divided up and used on the internet side on a "best effort" basis. You can't do this without having the converter box. So once you accept that you are required to have a box, the dog piling on of what goes into that box (PPV decryption, signal decryption, DVR, TV Guide, OnDemand Viewing, etc) is inevitable. I imagine we'll start seeing OTA tuners and Roku-like functionality in them eventually.

You can take some solace in the hope for reform where you can just purchase your own and use it (so long as it is approved) like in the case of your home cable modem. Or there could be reform in the form of operators being required to lease you a basic box at a very low price like cable operators are required to do with CableCARD. Worth noting is that it took two rounds of fighting with the cable operators to make CableCARD work. First they were required to have the standard. Then they just made the product difficult, unavailable, and expensive. Now it's a reasonable lease every month and there's off the shelf hardware you can buy and plug it into. However, there is a copy protection standard included with CableCARD, and a few arsehole operators like Comcast choose to overwrite the copy protection levels set by the channel operators. Typically channels are set copy freely so you can DVR and keep the DVR copy to view over and over again. But Comcast in some markets changes this to View Once which only allows strict time shifting one time. In a just universe, Comcast executives would be pilloried in every major metro area. Right around late tomato harvest time of year. But I digress .... the point is we can get to where the boxes don't suck from cable companies, but it will take either competition like SkyLink forcing them to change to stay in business or a decade of concerted pro-consumer bipartisan political effort via the FCC/Congress ( ).