2014's Internet Belongs To Cord Cutters

Until I can subscribe to sports channels without a cable or satellite sub, I will have to continue using them.
 
Until I can subscribe to sports channels without a cable or satellite sub, I will have to continue using them.
Click to expand...

This, they still have me by the balls and ESPN continues to repackage content they have already sold into new channels to extort more money.

However, what if ESPN just went to a direct sub model for watchESPN?
 
CMadki4 said:
the cost difference between internet and cable + internet for us is so negligible I'd just assume have access to that content as well.
Click to expand...
For me, it was cheaper to do both vs internet alone. So I have FIOS and don't pay for Netflix/Amazon (which had terrible content last I had them).
 
mastaBlasta said:
I'm paying $90/month just so i can watch GoT.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we get HBO just for GOT and then cancel it when the season ends, I had planned on calling at that time and working out a better price but I think I might just cancel it completely.

I am so tired of all the added fees, they are getting as bad as cell phone providers. Want HD and/or a DVR those both carry an extra monthly fee..

What started off at a $40 a month deal has ballooned into almost triple that number and our package is like second from the bottom, and HBO is the only pay channel. It's insane.



mastaBlasta said:
oh and Silicon Valley
Click to expand...

I haven't watched that, so it's pretty good?
 
Cerulean said:
cord cutters ruining it for the rest of us
Click to expand...

Are you saying that your prices are rising too far because the cord-cutters no longer support all the channels of your subscription? Perhaps you'll reach the point where it's no longer affordable, and you'll have to cut the cord? That's just the free market. Blame the companies for raising prices beyond the market supportable price points. Blame the oligarchy government for allowing the rich to leech wealth from the middle and poor classes, freezing the economy. But don't blame people for choosing how to spend their money differently than you do.
 
Cutter here... Kids use NetFlix I use Usenet almost exclusively, and we have an almost never used prime since I don't have any media devices to stream the HD content (fuckers).

I've averaged 1tb a month for the past 3 years of internet service.
 
XvMMvX said:
This, they still have me by the balls and ESPN continues to repackage content they have already sold into new channels to extort more money.

However, what if ESPN just went to a direct sub model for watchESPN?
Click to expand...

Then I would pay them $5-10 a month for sports that I can't otherwise watch. It's a shame, isn't it? Who doesn't like free money?
 
ChrisJohnson00TA said:
Cutter here... Kids use NetFlix I use Usenet almost exclusively, and we have an almost never used prime since I don't have any media devices to stream the HD content (fuckers).

I've averaged 1tb a month for the past 3 years of internet service.
Click to expand...

Amazon Prime? Which devices do you need to stream HD content? I seem to use my PC, Mac, and Roku (to 1080p TV) just fine.
 
I've bounced back and forth. Wife loves to be able to watch her alien conspiracy shows. I do catch her playing on her computer, streaming Supernatural all the freaking time though. The only reason I'm keeping it right now is for GoT. If I could find someone to get a HBO Go login though, I might not have the Comcast X1 service much longer. $140 a month is a little steep for the content we take advantage of.
 
All you game of thrones people. Why pay so much money? Eventually the seasons will come out on DVD, and then you can just netflix the DVDs. I'm doing that now for breaking bad. I never watched it live - but I just started up season 1 on DVD. My entertainment is the same - do you all like, talk about the episodes the next day after they air or something? And that's worth the money?

I think I actually prefer watching them later on - no waiting for the cliffhangers, no waiting for the new season. I just watch as much as I want, when I want.
 
dj_spanmaster said:
Then I would pay them $5-10 a month for sports that I can't otherwise watch. It's a shame, isn't it? Who doesn't like free money?
Click to expand...

That is based on the assumption they get the sports content for free, which they don't. It costs them a ton of money to be able to sell you the sports channels, and it's usually filled with other shit as a package deal. So they have to bundle up the shit with the sports content and resell to you.

So it's a good thing I don't care about sports. I haven't had cable in years now. I refuse to give them another dime until they update their business model to get with the times/internet. We need a spotify type product for TV and movies, but not a neutered version like Netflix which only has access to old shit.
 
Kongar said:
All you game of thrones people. Why pay so much money? Eventually the seasons will come out on DVD, and then you can just netflix the DVDs. I'm doing that now for breaking bad. I never watched it live - but I just started up season 1 on DVD. My entertainment is the same - do you all like, talk about the episodes the next day after they air or something? And that's worth the money?

I think I actually prefer watching them later on - no waiting for the cliffhangers, no waiting for the new season. I just watch as much as I want, when I want.
Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

The show has a lot of twists and turns and it's fun to watch and then talk with other people about it. Also, less chance to hear spoilers. Remember the days when everybody watched the same 2 shows on the same 2 channels and then you'd talk about them the next day in school with friends. The conversation was even better than the show.

I watched Battlestar Galactica many years after the original airing, and by the time i got around to it everybody had long moved on. Nothing more frustrating than trying to discuss a show with people that they've completely forgotten. But now it's about ME!
 
I guess if you say "cutting the cord" mean doing without land line telephone and cable TV.
I don't have cable TV or a land line. BUT I do have comcast internet so technically is the cord cut?? No.

Long before I was married I had a cell only (company paid for) and comcast cable TV and internet. I never wasted my time watching TV (still don't for the most part).
After I got married wife wanted all kind of cable channels and and a land line to talk to her mother.

That was the status for up until late last year. We got rid of cable TV and the land line but had to keep cable internet becauses the alternative is AT&T DSL.

For me the main issue with cable TV was the content is absolute GARBAGE that panders to the lowest common denominator.
 
Biznatch said:
That is based on the assumption they get the sports content for free, which they don't. It costs them a ton of money to be able to sell you the sports channels, and it's usually filled with other shit as a package deal. So they have to bundle up the shit with the sports content and resell to you.
Click to expand...

If ESPN already has the sports content, opening up their content to a new direct portal would cost them next to nothing - just setting up a membership/payment/stream source structure. But my guess is that would pull the rug out from under most cable/satellite services, so we won't see that happen until all of the economics of those services are no longer tenable. When everyone in that structure stops making money, things will change quickly.
 
cord cutter here for nearly 2 yrs.

between netflix, vudu, hulu, and my movie supply on the pc to stream to ps3 I rarely watch anymore. and when I do, its OTA with a 40 dollar antenna in attic.
 
Haha! 2014 doesn't belong to cord cutters. It belongs to ISPs that can implement data caps, charge for overages, and throttle competitors to ensure service lock-in.
 
Get your pitchforks out...I have Cable and Netflix/Amazon Prime. *runs away* :D
 
I haven't had regular cable tv in a decade. I should look up my stats.. I'm sure I use a ton of bw.
 
I often watch at least 2 hours of netflix or amazon prime a day.. my usage still isn't mega high.

vwp7.jpg
 
I'm not a cord cutter, but I've thought about it.

No Agenda has been talking about this for a couple weeks at least. Do we really want the government regulating the internet? Do we want the ISPs to go to metered billing? It's not going to mean paying less for using less. Look at the mobile industry. Comcast is on record about data caps and offering a plan that provides a high enough cap for the "typical" family.

Networks would be a mess if they weren't allowed to prioritize packets and keep time-sensitive data together. If all bits were treated equally the Netflix stream might be interrupted by the Instagram video, or the Skype call, or the file download.

Peerage agreements are what make the internet work. It's how everything connects to everything else. Now Netflix has a box to connect to inside Comcast's network. This wasn't needed because Comcast was slowing them down intentionally. It was needed to balance the network load.

I use Netflix for streaming. I gave up the DVDs because I could get a better value with Redbox. If I rent 4 DVDs a month I spend a little over $5, and I never rent 4 DVDs a month. I also get email codes for free rentals often enough that I don't really pay for rentals. I didn't like the way Netflix throttled DVDs anyway.

Breaking Bad was fantastic on the Netflix stream, and with my DVR courtesy of the recent switch to U-Verse, I was able to catch up in time to watch the last couple of episodes the day they aired, so I could discuss them with my coworkers. Not sure I could have done it waiting for DVDs.
 
I was a cord cutter for much of the first half of the 2000s. Then I moved from my home state of NJ to TX and figured I'd need to find ways to kill time in a state where I had no family or friends. So, I got Dish Network for a couple years. Then I bought an HDTV and an antenna, made new friends, and have been cord free for the past several years. :cool:

Now whenever friends ask me about cable, I implore them to get an antenna and cut the cord. Worst case, if antenna service doesn't work, then pay a much smaller bill by using Hulu +, Amazon, or even Netflix. Or go "underground". :p Regardless of what they do, don't pay $100+ to cable/satellite company ever mo.
 
robble said:
I often watch at least 2 hours of netflix or amazon prime a day.. my usage still isn't mega high.

vwp7.jpg
Click to expand...

And if you had multiple people in your house it would be much higher. We average 4-500GB/mo with 4 people.
 
Now if usage was metered, say $15 per hundred GB, I wonder if anyone's usage would change.
 
NeghVar said:
on the verge of cutting. Still trying to get an HD digital antenna that will get all the local channels
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of my Mohu Leaf. It gets me 21 channels (all the majors, 3x PBS, and a bunch of other randoms) and I'm about 40 miles from the metro area.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Staples said:
Now if usage was metered, say $15 per hundred GB, I wonder if anyone's usage would change.
Click to expand...

The sad thing about metered usage, is that it makes sense.
Offering 10/1 or 20/2 or 100/100 cost the same, once it's established.
The running cost for ISP's is the amount of data being moved outside their own net.

Selling metered connections only, would encourage offering streaming services servers on the ISP's net, as it saves money on transfers to neighbouring ISP's, and we could use whatever speed is available at our household.

The downside would of course be that ISP's would loose any incentive to offer higher speeds, as they can't get any additional money out of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top