Cord cutting still subpar

[NYDutch]

Ok, blame it on aging memory, but yes, you're correct, and the networks pay the affiliates to carry their programming, although since the proliferation of cable/satellite channels, those fees have dwindled to near nothing due to the reduced viewership according to my station contact.

 

[harshness]

Ok, blame it on aging memory, but yes, you're correct, and the networks pay the affiliates to carry their programming, although since the proliferation of cable/satellite channels, those fees have dwindled to near nothing due to the reduced viewership according to my station contact.

There are attacks on multiple fronts:

1. Pressure on advertisers by self-proclaimed nannies of what we should (or shouldn't) be watching
2. Networks sticking with the same old formulas and letting the cable networks eat your lunch
3. Giving up the value of being someone's all-the-time channel by inserting hours of infomercials and other throw-away programming
4. Spending millions on duplicating the efforts of various gubmint agencies (weather, consumer protection, etc) and creating news where the excitement doesn't otherwise sustain itself (my local NBC affiliate starts the news at 4:30 each day and plays and replays the days' news off and on until around 3am leaving room for not a whole lot else outside of prime time -- yeesh -- and infomercials)

Campy gets a bad rap, but people still want to know what good things are going on around them.

 

[Mark609]

Now that this thread has completely derailed and we have the "who shot John" conclusion, is it the consensus that streaming is still too premature to give up on satcos? I installed the original DISH on my house back when it first hit the market after the first SAT was launched but am tired of the ever increasing fees and "gotchas". I'm still using the PVR722 but need a change. Hopper 3?

I have OTA. Also love the ability to pause for up to an hour, back up to a previous point, etc. with an instant response with their good remotes.

 

[Zookster]

Now that this thread has completely derailed and we have the "who shot John" conclusion, is it the consensus that streaming is still too premature to give up on satcos? I installed the original DISH on my house back when it first hit the market after the first SAT was launched but am tired of the ever increasing fees and "gotchas". I'm still using the PVR722 but need a change. Hopper 3?

I have OTA. Also love the ability to pause for up to an hour, back up to a previous point, etc. with an instant response with their good remotes.

It really comes down to what your needs, budget, and priorities are. Are you on a fixed income and need to figure out how to save hundreds of dollars per year, and are willing to give up certain channels and get used to a new system for accessing your TV content in order to do that? Do you feel like you're wasting money subscribing to hundreds of channels you never watch (much less know you even have)? Do you have multiple rooms you need to access your channels and recorded content in and don't want to deal with all the boxes, wiring, and rental fees? Or is convenience, familiarity with what you have, and having access to the maximum number of linear channels available worth whatever the satcos want to charge you?

I realize the way I've posed those questions expresses my own personal bias. My dad would fall in the camp of someone who doesn't care how much it costs to give him the convenience of the system he's already familiar with. In fact, he recently got upsold on a Hopper 3. TV is all he does. It's his main priority, so he doesn't mind spending the extra dough for the status quo. Me on the other hand, I've recently been hit with increases in various living costs and needed to balance my budget. And now that I made the switch (2+ years ago) and have gotten used to it, I don't see myself ever going back however much OTT live TV services increase in price in relation to traditional services. YMMV.

 

[harshness]

Now that this thread has completely derailed and we have the "who shot John" conclusion, is it the consensus that streaming is still too premature to give up on satcos?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you want the positive part of a DISH experience, you'll play hell getting it elsewhere. The OTT experience doesn't currently deliver on much of the true DVR experience and I suspect that it is only getting started with respect to fees (in that case, paid to multiple organizations).

As to why you need to upgrade your ViP722, that's a whole other thread.

 

[harshness]

I realize the way I've posed those questions express my own personal bias.

In that your priority seems to be holding to your budget and Mark609's is more related to limiting the fuss, that's abundantly clear. Both are valid positions but your father's priorities are more in line with what was described than your own.

That you would stick with OTT even if the cost were comparable seems to me to be very difficult to reconcile.

 

[Zookster]

That you would stick with OTT even if the cost were comparable seems to me to be very difficult to reconcile.

I said "increase in price in relation to" not comparable as in exactly equivalent. Comparable/equivalent will never happen unless (as I pointed out earlier in this thread) traditional providers can bring prices down by offering skinny bundles that actually include channels people want (i.e., don't completely exclude major sports channels) while also offering access to all channels and recorded content on any device in one's home and at the same level of quality (the PQ quality of Dish Anywhere and Cox Contour on anything larger than a 7-inch screen is crap and costs extra) without charging upwards of $50 just for a couple of extra rooms.

If both satcos and the major OTT TV services ever start charging the same for 60 to 80 of the top cable channels (including ESPNs, RSNs, + big four local networks), whole home access on every device at the same high quality (720p/1080p @ 60fps), cloud DVR functionality, and on demand content access, I will reconsider my position.

 

[Ronnie-]

Now that this thread has completely derailed and we have the "who shot John" conclusion, is it the consensus that streaming is still too premature to give up on satcos? I installed the original DISH on my house back when it first hit the market after the first SAT was launched but am tired of the ever increasing fees and "gotchas". I'm still using the PVR722 but need a change. Hopper 3?

I have OTA. Also love the ability to pause for up to an hour, back up to a previous point, etc. with an instant response with their good remotes.

Like some others have said, it comes down to what your wants are.


For me, OTT just works, and works well . I save money in addition, I'm never in a contract, and I can use equipment I already have. In addition to it being extremely easy to take with me anywhere .

For others, my reasons may not be their reasons.

I think most should look into it however, and give it an open minded try. Many of us already have the equipment , and free trials are easy to get.

 

[harshness]

If both satcos and the major OTT TV services ever start charging the same for 60 to 80 of the top cable channels (including ESPNs, RSNs, + big four local networks), whole home access on every device at the same high quality (720p/1080p @ 60fps), cloud DVR functionality, and on demand content access, I will reconsider my position.

I don't think that time is all that far off. I also think that assuming you can't get skinny bundles from the conventional pay TV outlets is probably short-sighted. PS Vue's Elite package is now up to $59.99 and doesn't include premium movie channels. They've also pared their demo period down to five days.

I question that "cloud DVR" service is all that for purposes other than time-shifting.

 

[Bruce]

I don't think that time is all that far off. I also think that assuming you can't get skinny bundles from the conventional pay TV outlets is probably short-sighted. PS Vue's Elite package is now up to $59.99 and doesn't include premium movie channels.

And Core ( which I have) is $50, which has every channel I want ( and still more then I want), to get the same channels from Dish the cost is $79 a month ( with no premium movie channels) plus every time you bring up the cost of OTT and Traditional Providers you never write about the extra fees like DVR and Boxes which would add another $35 a month to my bill if I had Dish.

I question that "cloud DVR" service is all that for purposes other than time-shifting.

Works great for me, the other night we watched about 3-4 episodes each of Big Bang, Sheldon and Mom that had been saved over the last few weeks, worked great.

 

[navychop]

I think a lot of us would welcome bundles that excluded sports entirely.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[harshness]

Works great for me, the other night we watched about 3-4 episodes each of Big Bang, Sheldon and Mom that had been saved over the last few weeks, worked great.

Yet a true DVR can bring so much more than time shifting. Being able to watch multiple channels at once or jump between channels can be a very appealing as can being able to use the same DVR with all of your channels. Android TV is supposed to deliver on at least part of that experience but so far, nobody's going ape over what's currently being offered.

 

[Zookster]

I also think that assuming you can't get skinny bundles from the conventional pay TV outlets is probably short-sighted. PS Vue's Elite package is now up to $59.99 and doesn't include premium movie channels. They've also pared their demo period down to five days.

In the same post, I wrote:

... offering skinny bundles that actually include channels people want (i.e., don't completely exclude major sports channels) ...

, indicating that I have some familiarity with this. Granted, since Dish and DirecTV sat service are nonstarters for me, I'm only talking about my local cable company's skinny bundle offerings, which don't include sports channels. Currently, Cox's lowest tier only includes locals, public access, shopping, and channels available locally OTA (with fees and taxes the price of that Starter package would be around the $35 I pay for YTTV). To get the sports channels I get with YouTube TV, or PS Vue's $50 tier, I'd have to subscribe to their max-level Ultimate channel package.

I question that "cloud DVR" service is all that for purposes other than time-shifting.

I would question what else one uses any DVR for other than time-shifting, but since you asked, additional advantages of a cloud DVR include unlimited number of tuners, timers, and storage (I can literally record everything being aired on all the linear channels all day, every day, if I wanted). And access to all my recorded content anytime, on any device in my house, in the same high quality (720p/1080/, 60fps) I get in my living room without having hard-wired boxes and the associated mirroring and rental fees, which in the case of Cox would run me $40-$50 extra just for that access.

 

[comfortably_numb]

How long can you keep recordings with a cloud DVR? I record movies during free preview weekends on my DISH DVR and keep them for years.

 

[Ronnie-]

How long can you keep recordings with a cloud DVR? I record movies during free preview weekends on my DISH DVR and keep them for years.

With YouTube TV it's 9 months I think.

Vue is 28 days, or used to be. Others vary

 

[comfortably_numb]

With YouTube TV it's 9 months I think.

Vue is 28 days, or used to be. Others vary

Thanks. That wouldn't work for me. My DVR is a like a catalogue of movies I watch most often. I don't just use a DVR to time shift; it's also an archive.

 

[Ronnie-]

Yet a true DVR can bring so much more than time shifting. Being able to watch multiple channels at once or jump between channels can be a very appealing as can being able to use the same DVR with all of your channels. Android TV is supposed to deliver on at least part of that experience but so far, nobody's going ape over what's currently being offered.

Being able to use the same DVR for all your channels ? Yttv allows me to do that.

Or did you mean something else ?

 

[Ronnie-]

Thanks. That wouldn't work for me. My DVR is a like a catalogue of movies I watch most often. I don't just use a DVR to time shift; it's also an archive.

I used to do that, but most of the movies I used to record were available on multiple services, so for me that wasn't an issue. For some it is.

 

[comfortably_numb]

I used to do that, but most of the movies I used to record were available on multiple services, so for me that wasn't an issue. For some it is.

My system is set up as follows: 1. Wally with an EHD that can be easily mirrored to a new drive if the current one ever fails. Whenever premium channels have free previews, or Dish offers me 3-6 months of a free premium service, I record tons of movies for viewing later. I have the bare minimum package with Dish (Welcome Pack). This allows me to keep a "true DVR." 2. I get a free sub to YTTV through my work. I use it if I need to stream live sports, or to supplement any channels not available in my Dish package. 3. For anything else, I use my FTA dishes. My total out-of-pocket expense for TV each month is $22.99.

 

[ncted]

My system is set up as follows: 1. Wally with an EHD that can be easily mirrored to a new drive if the current one ever fails. Whenever premium channels have free previews, or Dish offers me 3-6 months of a free premium service, I record tons of movies for viewing later. I have the bare minimum package with Dish (Welcome Pack). This allows me to keep a "true DVR." 2. I get a free sub to YTTV through my work. I use it if I need to stream live sports, or to supplement any channels not available in my Dish package. 3. For anything else, I use my FTA dishes. My total out-of-pocket expense for TV each month is $22.99.

How is that only $22.99? Wally should be $7 and Welcome Pack is $22.99 on its own. Does Missouri have no taxes on sat service? Still, even if it is $29.99, that isn't bad.