Extremely OT: Cut the Cable?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Problem is you still need broadband, so you either get it from the cable provider, or the phone provider, or dish which is just like cable. Then you need the Roku subscription, and the premium (HBO etc) subscriptions so its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

We have DSL from the phone company in a triple-play with a landline and the satellite. Cuts the bill a bit. It's fast enough for Netflix via Roku and ChromeCast WiFi. (Have both.) No dealings with cable company since we got DirecTV.

There's no Roku subscription. (?)

You can now get HBO and Showtime as stand-alone subscriptions without going through either a cable company or a satellite. I think HBO is worth it for its back library. Not for movies anymore. But I gots to have my GOT fix. [8D]

And Rome! Then there's Tudors and Borgias on Showtime (dunno if they let you go to the back library). My sub came with a year free for HBO/Showtime/Starz/Cinemax, and I've been able to watch Ash vs. Evil Dead and Black Sails, and will be able to watch GoT legitimately this year as well as check out other stuff if I feel like it... definitely worth it. Not worth the $50/mo they charge normally for those channels, but if I could get it for $25/mo on a promo I would consider it for the spring months when "show density" is high.

The other thing is that, with an actual cable subscription, I am eligible to watch the streams of certain networks, ESPN in particular. I expect more networks to go in this direction in the future because it just makes sense (maybe they won't, but who knows). They verify your subscription via your provider's online login service and you're off to the streams.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Problem is you still need broadband, so you either get it from the cable provider, or the phone provider, or dish which is just like cable. Then you need the Roku subscription, and the premium (HBO etc) subscriptions so its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

We have DSL from the phone company in a triple-play with a landline and the satellite. Cuts the bill a bit. It's fast enough for Netflix via Roku and ChromeCast WiFi. (Have both.) No dealings with cable company since we got DirecTV.

There's no Roku subscription. (?)

You can now get HBO and Showtime as stand-alone subscriptions without going through either a cable company or a satellite. I think HBO is worth it for its back library. Not for movies anymore. But I gots to have my GOT fix. [8D]

And Rome! Then there's Tudors and Borgias on Showtime (dunno if they let you go to the back library). My sub came with a year free for HBO/Showtime/Starz/Cinemax, and I've been able to watch Ash vs. Evil Dead and Black Sails, and will be able to watch GoT legitimately this year as well as check out other stuff if I feel like it... definitely worth it. Not worth the $50/mo they charge normally for those channels, but if I could get it for $25/mo on a promo I would consider it for the spring months when "show density" is high.

The other thing is that, with an actual cable subscription, I am eligible to watch the streams of certain networks, ESPN in particular. I expect more networks to go in this direction in the future because it just makes sense (maybe they won't, but who knows). They verify your subscription via your provider's online login service and you're off to the streams.

Watched first season of Rome when it was new, then didn't have HBO for a long time. Sopranos of course. Six Feet Under was great. Also Generation Kill, a mini-series about the invasion of Iraq. Well worth watching. Many other series.

Showtime we mostly are catching up on Homeland. Well-written and -acted in early seasons.

HBO, Showtime, and many others let you watch on a phone or a tablet with the DirecTV log in. Same as for the Roku. One license and they don't care where you consume it. They have their own apps.

[KMCCARTHY]

I bought a Smart 55" TV two years ago with the intention of streaming soccer (women's). The buffering was unbearable.

We switched to Verizon last year from Comcast. The wife needs [&o]simple and for the cost it is one less thing to "discuss". Much better QOS. It is not worth it to me to cut and save $2-3 a day.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




We have DSL from the phone company in a triple-play with a landline and the satellite. Cuts the bill a bit. It's fast enough for Netflix via Roku and ChromeCast WiFi. (Have both.) No dealings with cable company since we got DirecTV.

There's no Roku subscription. (?)

You can now get HBO and Showtime as stand-alone subscriptions without going through either a cable company or a satellite. I think HBO is worth it for its back library. Not for movies anymore. But I gots to have my GOT fix. [8D]

And Rome! Then there's Tudors and Borgias on Showtime (dunno if they let you go to the back library). My sub came with a year free for HBO/Showtime/Starz/Cinemax, and I've been able to watch Ash vs. Evil Dead and Black Sails, and will be able to watch GoT legitimately this year as well as check out other stuff if I feel like it... definitely worth it. Not worth the $50/mo they charge normally for those channels, but if I could get it for $25/mo on a promo I would consider it for the spring months when "show density" is high.

The other thing is that, with an actual cable subscription, I am eligible to watch the streams of certain networks, ESPN in particular. I expect more networks to go in this direction in the future because it just makes sense (maybe they won't, but who knows). They verify your subscription via your provider's online login service and you're off to the streams.

Watched first season of Rome when it was new, then didn't have HBO for a long time. Sopranos of course. Six Feet Under was great. Also Generation Kill, a mini-series about the invasion of Iraq. Well worth watching. Many other series.

Showtime we mostly are catching up on Homeland. Well-written and -acted in early seasons.

HBO, Showtime, and many others let you watch on a phone or a tablet with the DirecTV log in. Same as for the Roku. One license and they don't care where you consume it. They have their own apps.

I watched Generation Kill on Amazon Prime, plus Sopranos and Rome are both available. And Homeland. Haven't watch those yet though.

My son #2 says there is an Amazon thingy like Roku now that is worth looking into.

[Footslogger]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




And Rome! Then there's Tudors and Borgias on Showtime (dunno if they let you go to the back library). My sub came with a year free for HBO/Showtime/Starz/Cinemax, and I've been able to watch Ash vs. Evil Dead and Black Sails, and will be able to watch GoT legitimately this year as well as check out other stuff if I feel like it... definitely worth it. Not worth the $50/mo they charge normally for those channels, but if I could get it for $25/mo on a promo I would consider it for the spring months when "show density" is high.

The other thing is that, with an actual cable subscription, I am eligible to watch the streams of certain networks, ESPN in particular. I expect more networks to go in this direction in the future because it just makes sense (maybe they won't, but who knows). They verify your subscription via your provider's online login service and you're off to the streams.

Watched first season of Rome when it was new, then didn't have HBO for a long time. Sopranos of course. Six Feet Under was great. Also Generation Kill, a mini-series about the invasion of Iraq. Well worth watching. Many other series.

Showtime we mostly are catching up on Homeland. Well-written and -acted in early seasons.

HBO, Showtime, and many others let you watch on a phone or a tablet with the DirecTV log in. Same as for the Roku. One license and they don't care where you consume it. They have their own apps.

I watched Generation Kill on Amazon Prime, plus Sopranos and Rome are both available. And Homeland. Haven't watch those yet though.

My son #2 says there is an Amazon thingy like Roku now that is worth looking into.

You Mean These?

[kaleun]

The thing is you still have to buy the subscription to HBO etc. With cable you can also watch it in your laptop, phone, etc. If you get a package from the cable company it may or may not be cheaper than getting individual subscriptions to the premium channels.
Of course, [8|]since it is absolutely impossible to actually know how much each piece of the cable enchilada costs, it may take a supercomputer to figure it out.
When the cable company gave me a total price that was less if I got a landline phone in addition to my cable and internet I knew never to invest in cable.
Phone + Cable + Internet costs less than Cable + Internet! Does that make any sense?

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: KMCCARTHY

I bought a Smart 55" TV two years ago with the intention of streaming soccer (women's). The buffering was unbearable.

We switched to Verizon last year from Comcast. The wife needs [&o]simple and for the cost it is one less thing to "discuss". Much better QOS. It is not worth it to me to cut and save $2-3 a day.

The smart tv's are known to be terrible if you try to run apps directly from the TV. Almost always need a third party device in addition.

[wdolson]

A competitor to Netflix is Amazon Prime which streams a wide variety of content, some of it original to Amazon, too.

Bill

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

A competitor to Netflix is Amazon Prime which streams a wide variety of content, some of it original to Amazon, too.

Bill

This past autumn or late summer Amazon had aabout 1/3 off discount on a 1 year Prime membership (regular $100). A friend of mine took them up as he is a frequent Amazon.com customer. They've been loving the free shipping plus streaming music and movies.

[Anachro]

I have Amazon Prime. Can confirm I think the service is great given how much I rely on Amazon for various things, especially the free shipping. I order a lot of books and do all my non-perishable shopping via it. The video streaming package is a great extra!

[CaptBeefheart]

We do things differently overseas. Let's just say the words "torrential" and "streaming" come in handy for U.S. TV shows and movies and sports, respectively. Luckily broadband is ubercheap in this country.

Cheers,
CC

[wdolson]

A lot of countries have much cheaper and faster internet access than the US. I have 50 Mbps and that's on the high side for the US, but it's paltry compared to many countries. We have fiber optic (FioS) which I think it cheaper than cable (it was when we got it), but it's still more expensive than it should be.

Bill

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

A lot of countries have much cheaper and faster internet access than the US. I have 50 Mbps and that's on the high side for the US, but it's paltry compared to many countries. We have fiber optic (FioS) which I think it cheaper than cable (it was when we got it), but it's still more expensive than it should be.

Bill

I pay like 20 Euro for 10/100Mbit here in Sweden. Could get up to 1Gb but that is pretty expensive.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

A lot of countries have much cheaper and faster internet access than the US. I have 50 Mbps and that's on the high side for the US, but it's paltry compared to many countries. We have fiber optic (FioS) which I think it cheaper than cable (it was when we got it), but it's still more expensive than it should be.

Bill

US and Canada are huge countries with relatively small populations in many areas. Putting service in all the rural areas costs a lot so that is spread out over the higher density city customer base. Personally, I find it reasonable to bring Internet service to isolated locations and spread the cost - it fits my idea of a country as a community that looks after every citizen in matters of infrastructure.

[BillBrown]

I didn't have cable, but I did just discontinue my Direct TV.

[CaptBeefheart]

I pay about $40 a month for 250 or so channels and theoretical 100 MBPS (it never gets that high from the U.S.). If I were single I'd just have the internet part for about $20. On the plus side, I can watch StarCraft II and Go on two dedicated channels each.[;)]

Cheers,
CC

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

A lot of countries have much cheaper and faster internet access than the US. I have 50 Mbps and that's on the high side for the US, but it's paltry compared to many countries. We have fiber optic (FioS) which I think it cheaper than cable (it was when we got it), but it's still more expensive than it should be.

Bill

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
US and Canada are huge countries with relatively small populations in many areas. Putting service in all the rural areas costs a lot so that is spread out over the higher density city customer base. Personally, I find it reasonable to bring Internet service to isolated locations and spread the cost - it fits my idea of a country as a community that looks after every citizen in matters of infrastructure.

There are rural areas in the US that only have dial up or satellite internet. Most cities have broadband, but speeds above 30 Mbps is rare. Even the most urbanized parts of the US lag behind much of the rest of the industrialized world and prices are higher. This article compares prices and speeds between the US and the rest of the world. It is a couple of years old, but not much has changed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383

Bill