General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCable Just Not Worth The Price Regardless Of Cable Series. Most OF It Stinks Like A Dead Mackerel.
I have not have cable for at least 20 years and do not intend to in the near future either. Many of the programs that were on the Emmies I have never seen and probably never will. I am sure some of the cable series have excellent acting and are very good, but that will not bring me to their table.
The price seems to go up all the time. And the companies seem to scam people more and more. Besides their basic prices they have all these added fees for TIVO and other amenities. Now you can't almost cannot record anything unless it is on a eternally rented TIVO that reports back what you are watching.
The most offensive is that I cannot take cable without being forced to take FOX NOISE. I cannot eliminate any of the money that goes to that POS show. Sure I can block it, but some of my fee will go to them. Except for parts of MSNBC all the news shows are a joke and disgrace. And weekends they are non existent. They would miss the end of the world if it happened after Friday night.
Finally, for a fee I get endless repeats, bubbafied pawn and other shows, religious shows, thousands of infomercials, over 20 minutes of commercials on every non premium network, and mostly puerile garbage.
Cable makes early television look like the Sistine Chapel.
I still get HDTV with my antenna and I still have as much as I can watch. And I do not have to pay a monthly extortion fee to do it.
blogslut
(38,021 posts)Get a good Internet connection and all will be well.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It starts with a T and ends with a T.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Netflix and hulu, but a lot of stuff is posted on the channel/network.
I can no longer tolerate the ad intrusions of regular television.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I've never figured out how to solve the problem of random interruptions caused by my computer running out of data and waiting for buffering.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I haven't owned a television in well over a decade, and anything I watch, I stream. An exception would be movies, which I download and watch at leisure. I don't watch much in the way of television shows (Grimm, Defiance, and a couple others)...mostly soccer, actually! =)
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)My guess is that the buffering problem has to do with your ISP, and how fast they let you do things. Unless it's your actual computer. I don't know enough about these things. I just know that every few years I buy a new computer, and I have a very fast internet connection, so streaming is no problem for me.
Skittles
(153,262 posts)if they ever offer a la carte I will check out the prices for the 3 or for channels I want
Rex
(65,616 posts)Pay for channels I want and nothing more.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)By the time I could get the kind of channels want they will have all the dumb ass bubbas like I see on History Channel and Discovery. I simply do no know how they come up with so much SHIT. I have a problem with content on so much cable now. Plus they are only barely investing in new programming. Then again the traditional networks are not doing much better.
Now that PBS is using advertising there is deterioration there as well.
ananda
(28,893 posts)..
FarPoint
(12,474 posts)I love the variety of real cooking shows, Dowton Abbey, Call the Midwives, Frontline...that is just for starters!
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)'America Reframed', 'Independent Lens', 'Global Voices', 'POV', 'Frontline', 'Bill Moyers', 'To The Contrary', 'Nova', ect.
I haven't bothered to watch the original PBS channel in years though, so I've no idea what they have to offer.
If it wasn't for that channel (PBS 'World') and CSpan's Book TV (which airs only on weekends) I'd probably get rid of my basic cable package.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)They're "enhanced underwriting credits", dammit!
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Do not have a computer connect to my big screen yet. Net speed in our area is not as good as it could be. When it was installed it was screwed up and the feed is weaker than it should be. I could get Comcast cable but they only do cable and would have to dig up my garden to put it in.
Sadly the internet in this country is so far behind the rest of the world in some basic ways. They way we allowed it to evolve and be bastardized is an embarrassment to this nation.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The internet here in Korea is quite a bit faster than in the US. Of course the amount of people and the size of the land mass is much smaller as well. There are only 1/6 of the population of the US with the country being the size of Indiana.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but that is about it. mostly sports.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's worth it for our bunch. Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad (farewell...), Ray Donovan, there's something for everyone.
JustAnotherGen
(32,010 posts)Boardwalk Empire, BBCA (Copper), FX, FXX, TCM , Italian Television, Euronews . . . Lately I find myself obsessing over HGTV renovation shows.
FarPoint
(12,474 posts)HGTV is fine....I love House Hunters and Love it or List it....Property Brothers is fun too.
BuddhaGirl
(3,614 posts)It's our main source of entertainment, so that's how we justify the cost
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Just to add to your list. I for the longest time was a big hater of TV. I very rarely found a show I liked. And most of what is on these days is worse than when I was younger.
But the highs these days are amazing and for most of them you need premium TV...
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I have cable purely for internet service. Don't even have a TV hooked up.
NBachers
(17,170 posts)I haven't paid a cable bill since the mid-'80's. I refuse to put money into their rightwing ripoff corporate scams.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)for the price of basic cable, you could buy 18-19 DVD box sets a year. I don't think there are 18-19 shows on basic cable that I would bother following and buying the DVDs lets you get premium cable shows.
The only thing I would actually watch would be the Daily Show and Colbert but not worth $40/month.
mucifer
(23,599 posts)wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)the price incentives to take the package (phone, internet, tv) are completely unfair.
Incentive isnt quite the right word, more like extortion.
Here is where it gets scary- assume a customer is without a cel phone.
Or better yet, know that my cel phone stopped working, not because the bill was unpaid, but because its broken and yet to be
replaced. The other night the cable went out.
NO 911.
They should not be able to place people in that much danger.
Massive safety issue, and undoubtedly people have already suffered the consequences.
Land line phone service is much less likely to go poof unless a car takes out a pole or exposed box.
those things happen, but what the cable monopolies are doing is very dangerous.
and no, they arent worth one fifth of what they charge.
add a cel phone bill to a package such as the cable companies push, and you are giving a higher percentage of your income to
data pirates than to any other utility or expenditure short of food, oil and pharmaceuticals.
Add all those up, and your as broke as you can be, all month, every month.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)That's why 911 is called so often on Christmas. People get a new phone and want to test it and 911 is the only number that works without putting any money into an account. I used pre-paid but I could still, by law, call 911 if my account was empty.
If your phone broke because the phone is a piece of shit, that's a mechanical problem with equipment you bought, not an issue with the cable company.
reddread
(6,896 posts)samsung, could have been a dead battery for someone else.
thanks for your input.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)and your phone was broken or you didn't recharge your cordless phone, 911 wouldn't work either.
The point is that not being able to call 911 if your cell phone breaks or the battery is dead isn't really a reason not to buy cable TV.
reddread
(6,896 posts)there is a great story by Harvey Kurtzman, called "If"
this was simply the circumstance that occurred.
Ifs would not have helped.
Landlines are the best bet, but if you will give me the chance to get to my point, perhaps more successfully,
the extortionist price plans of cable broadband providers is meant to encourage their service at the expense of other
more reliable methods.
I can only imagine that many elderly people will find themselves without that 911 functionality every time their cable service fails.
Personally, with the most profitable companies on the planet excusing themselves from paying taxes, I wont be giving them the slack that laying blame on the victims entails.
Nor, will I be looking to send more money to companies that have betrayed our privacy to the extent that both parties agreed to legalize their transgressions retroactively.
subscribing to that sort of service is not the best way to respond.
we are being gouged by all telecoms and broadband outfits, for service inferior to that provided elsewhere.
its not going to get better here.
there are too many crooks in that bed.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)but this: "I can only imagine that many elderly people will find themselves without that 911 functionality every time their cable service fails" is misinformation and potentially dangerous misinformation at that.
If your cable service fails, 911 will still work as long as your phone works. If you break your phone or let the battery go dead, you can't blame the cable service for not having 911 functionality.
reddread
(6,896 posts)that is the circumstance I am talking about.
murielm99
(30,780 posts)We have an antenna and HDTV. I won't pay for the other crap. I see some cable when I go to the gym. From what I am seeing, it is not worth the money.
KT2000
(20,602 posts)I'm not up on all the latest so I don't know how people get HDTV without cable or satellite.
Am looking into getting an antenna so I can lost the satellite bill.
BumRushDaShow
(129,905 posts)as well as Standard Definition ("SD" TV).
Assuming you are near a good-sized media market, you should be able to get some rabbit ears (or a larger roof antenna if necessary) to pick up the "local" HD broadcasts (which often include multiple sub-channels associated with the main channel). So for example here in Philly, there is a CBS channel "3" but that station now appears as "3.1" (which was a result of the digital switchover). And that same station also broadcasts different programming on "3.2" ("CBSPlus" . Other local stations might have sub-channels associated with the main broadcast channel that run rotating traffic webcams, or 24/7 weather, or local public affairs programming, etc. It's pretty amazing what is coming over the air that is "hidden".
LTR
(13,227 posts)Not entirely the same.
DTV, or digital TV, is the current broadcast standard, since 2009. Older TV sets can pick up DTV stations with a converter box and a decent antenna. Newer flat-panel sets are already equipped for this. But anyone currently watching over-the-air TV already has this step taken care of.
HDTV is a higher definition format used by many stations, but not all. All newer flat-panel LCD, LED, plasma, etc. should have this capability, and the prices are pretty cheap. HDTV is not possible with an older tube-style TV, except for the very few that feature that.
BumRushDaShow
(129,905 posts)I pointed out that -
1,) Most of the major over-the-air (free) networks now broadcast HDTV signals (as well as standard definition)
2.) These stations (at least here locally and probably elsewhere) are ALSO broadcasting multiple, simultaneous programs on their assigned channel bandwidth since the digital content that they broadcast uses a fraction of the amount of bandwidth that the analog signal used to use (thanks to data compression, etc). So they can subdivide their allocation and often broadcast multiple "sub channels" within their assigned bands - which actually gives consumers "extra" stuff that wasn't around before when they were broadcasting only in analog.
So as another example here in Philly, there is the ABC channel 6.1 (the HD network channel) and its sub-channels 6.2 & 6.3 ("Live Well" program). Our local PBS station has - 12.1 ("Sesame Street" , 12.2 ("This Old House" , 12.3 ("Global Voices" , 12.6 & 12.7 (no program).
The OP appeared to be unsure about being able to get the HDTV without cable//satellite (meaning not over the air)... And assuming that that the OP was already watching HDTV (which is why they were hesitant to drop the pay choice), they would already have the TV set that would be able to display HDTV even if it is broadcast over the air.
LTR
(13,227 posts)But I'm so used to seeing people that are still confused by all of it.Figured I'd add some simplification.
KT2000
(20,602 posts)murielm99
(30,780 posts)know the details. Ask at a store that sells televisions. He set up us with Tivo, too.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Then, if your in or close to a city, you use a set top HD digital antenna for about $30. Set up the TV, use an HDMI cable (also about $30) to connect your antenna to the set, use your remote to turn on the TV, and follow the on-screen instructions to scan for channels.
That's what I have, and it brings in three PBS channels (cable has 2), three channels of old programs (like ME TV), and all the major networks.
If you're too far out of town, you may need a rooftop antenna.
I also have a Roku box ($100 for the top of the line model), which connects the Internet to my TV via an HDMI cable. If you subscribe to Netflix or Hulu Plus or Acorn Online, you can access these and other services (a lot of crappy free channels that don't require a subscription) by using the Roku to stream them to your TV.
KT2000
(20,602 posts)thank you!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)KT2000
(20,602 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,869 posts)Guess what I chose?
NBachers
(17,170 posts)You made the best choice!
yuiyoshida
(41,869 posts)I still have access to Sunday NFL games, Major League Baseball, and some TV series featured on the world wide net. This includes MSNBC as well. Who needs TV when you can find access to stuff you want?
NBachers
(17,170 posts)Over the past few days I've listened to baroque organ from Europe, '60's rock, and electronic raw blues. I've watched movies from the 1941 Gangbusters serials to a 2012 film. I'm headed off to watch something on Netflix now.
http://www.roku.com/
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)an hour and a half, through every channel both basic and premium, and couldn't find one thing worth watching. We haven't paid a cent to these fuckers in over a decade and are far better for it.
I swear on my life, once you break away from the incessant indoctrination, your mind will start working again.
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)canceled the next day
there is nothing to watch on TV
now netflix is putting up some of the shows from that last few years (all have been canceled and I see why) they are terrible
I can only stand about 5 minutes then move on
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)It's as if the entire industry is created by and for 12 year old boys and 8 year old girls.
I was paying a little over $60 p/mo for everything back then, I'm sure it's far more now.
pstokely
(10,533 posts)Non-sports fans subsidizing ESPN and player salaries, you don't need cable if you don't care about sports and can get OTA TV with an antenna and even those channels are driving up the cost through re-transmission fees.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... until there is a la carte subscriptions, I'm done with cable and satellite. I'm also tired of subsidizing programming that wouldn't last 5 minutes in any kind of real "free market", such as most religious channels.
Every few years the subject comes up (forcing cable/satellite to offer custom channel packages) and they successfully beat it back each time. The technology to do this is easily available and it would not even be hard for them to do. They don't want to because the model they have now is the devil they know.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)I could no longer could get any local stations with my house antenna. So now I have to pay Dish Network just to watch the local news, and it ain't cheap!
distantearlywarning
(4,475 posts)Now streaming Netflix and I already had an Amazon Prime account.
We haven't missed cable at all, except for one thing - I used to watch home improvement shows and now that's hard to do. I can stream some of them, but the service is inconsistent.
Nevertheless, it wasn't worth paying $80 a month to watch a few home improvement shows once in a while. I was sick to death of subsidizing sports (only watch Steelers games, but was subsidizing everything from golf to auto racing to tennis on a bunch of channels). Every other channel that used to have some useful content is now showing endless trashy "reality" TV 24-7. Every show is a big reality competition with backstabbing, badly behaved whores (of every gender) duking it out to be crowned with some meaningless title. I just started wondering why the hell I was paying $80 a month to support shows about idiotic jerkwads whose greatest ambition in life is to fuck a washed up 80s rockstar or for their overly made-up three-year-old to win a plastic rhinestone crown in a hotel banquet room in BFE Alabama.
So we quit. It's been great. I get more done, and our bank account is healthier. Not sure what we're going to do next season when GoT comes back, but I'll cross that bridge when we get there, I guess. Is there a way to pay for HBO content on the internet? We'll figure something out.
The only way I would consider going back to cable is if we could pay ala carte. I no longer wish to spend my money on religious programming, home shopping network crap, expensive sports that I don't care about in the least, or 1800 channels of "Real Douchebags of Doucheville".
ananda
(28,893 posts)I find I watch fewer cable shows these days and more
shows on Netflix and Acorn.
LTR
(13,227 posts)I can't justify paying $100-200 a month for Mad Men, Doctor Who, Sons Of Anarchy, etc. Not when most of the cable landscape is infomercials, stale movies packed with commercials, reality shows and other garbage I don't care for. And I won't fork over all that money to a company that will bend over backward for a channel that shows nothing but reruns of 70s game shows but won't give Al Jazeera America the time of day.
I don't have Netflix yet but will eventually. It's an excellent deal. Plus, the local library eventually gets all the season sets of popular TV shows like The Walking Dead. For live TV, my antenna works just fine, it's free and the HD picture blows cable away.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)I have all the new series to date that are available. I know I see if a bit later but I can watch it over and over again if I want. I also have all the episodes shown in Denver over time on video tape. It may not be high def, but if I ever try to watch all of it it would take six months. I also have DVD sets from all the new episodes since they restarted the series.
I would take cable if they let me pick the channels I wanted. Besides I do not like subsidizing FOX and all those crooked religious channels.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)I honestly have not missed it at all. I know folks that spend over $100. a month for all the bells and whistles.
Cheers~!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)JCMach1
(27,586 posts)are all you need.
Cost is CHEAP if intend to have the net anyway.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)There was hard core censorship of language and of content, no gay characters nor openly gay artists. Married couples were portrayed as sleeping in twin beds. All of this was paid for by long commercials for cigarettes with Doctors doing the pitch. A regular Sistine Chapel it was, if you were white, straight, middle class and into Ozzie and Harriet.....
This is the golden age of television right here and right now. Of course I'm in that business so I love TV. I would never expect that all of the programming would be to my taste. I'm not a conservative, I don't need the world to be like me. I'm glad that people who like sports get sports to watch. I never watch them, just as the sports fans do not watch the documentaries or dramas I like. It's supposed to be a big wide world of choices. It's not supposed to be 'stuff I already know I like'. Such truncated curiosity is hard for me to fathom.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)leftyladyfrommo
(18,874 posts)I don't even have a TV set. TV just bores me to tears.
RC
(25,592 posts)I used to work for a cable TV company, 15-20 years ago. I would tell people that I was a pusher, not a user.
Because I worked there and was responsible for the cable hub, I had everything for free, including the pay-per-views. There wasn't much to watch then either.
I did get free baby sitting, though. My girl friend's oldest son would watch my kids for free, for being able to watch the premium movie channels. So that was worth it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)and another "I'm better" without TV in my life thread.
The air of superiority throughout it all is amusing.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)There's generally only one broadcast Giants game a week, I need cable for the other five or six.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)He made billions of dollars as a CATV franchise operator and finished it off by taking the Indians off of free TV. Big sigh
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Between the networks that are more than 50% advertisements, and the fact that the stations I used to watch have lowest-common-denominatored so badly that I'm not even a little in their target audience anymore (I'm looking at you, History, Discovery and TLC), there isn't really much of a point.
If I want to watch something - and there still is some excellent stuff being produced now and then - I'll spend the money on season sets, get to watch the shows without constant ads, and spend less than I would have on the subscription packages in the first place. I don't get driven up the wall and the people producing the content I like still get income from it, so as far as I'm concerned everyone wins.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)For me anyway. Everyone else's mileage may vary.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)shopping channels and my local news channels. That's the reason I keep cable.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Baseball in 1080 resolution is stunning. It is not on local TV.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I do miss some of the sports channels, especially those that will sometimes show my teams.
Some of the baseball postseason is on cable, which I think is really unfair.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Not sure I am missing anything except maybe premo sports but we do have Netflix and the internet - nobody here is complaining.........and I am not much of a "watcher" of anything anyway.
Kids do not know anything else and that is probably a good thing
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)My family and I watch quite a bit on our cable. I do agree that it's higher than it ought to be.
Either way, we enjoy the variety and we all get what we want out of it. I like watching Rachel and Ed. Husband enjoys racing, NCIS and other shows. Our grandchildren get what they want as do our son and other family that visits.
If you don't get what you want out of it or see it as pointless...that's fine.
In the end, we all go with what works best for us.
Alkene
(752 posts)Ours has a decent collection of movies, shows and cable series; need to be okay with deferred gratification, but worth the price of admission: free.
Between OTA and library CDs, I've got more free tv than I have time to watch.
Oh yeah, they also got books: sorta like the internet, only made of trees.
Broken_Hero
(59,305 posts)I dumped Cable this past May because I was getting very upset at the price, and the lack of anything worth a damn to watch. When I first got our tv/internet/phone package in 2006, our payment was 81 dollars, and when I cut it off this past May it was 133 dollars, and to boot, another 4 dollar fee was due to hit(so if I stayed with it my minimum would've been 137).
I had over 110 channels and there was hardly anything on, ever. I spent most of my time on ESPN watching reruns/sports, or on FX watching Sons of Anarchy for a few months, and outside of that I didn't have any loyalty to any other show/programming. I tried Netflix in April and I loved it...after a few hours of using Netflix I knew my cable was going to go bye/bye.
I do miss my Sons of Anarchy but I buckled down and am buying single episodes via Amazon Instant Video(two bucks a pop). I do miss my ESPN channels a bit, my usual morning show, but ESPN radio via the internet suits my needs, plus I get a full slate of NFL on Sundays. I do miss my baseball though, but my Mariners are defunct and NOT watching them probably is saving me from stress. I also got the HD tv antennae going as well so I can still catch my Sunday NFL games, and The Big Bang Theory.
I loathe cable, I hate paying for shit I don't want, nor need. Its like going to a grocery store for a gallon of milk, and the store forcing you to buy three loaves of bread, a dozen eggs, and a turkey. I cannot wait for an ala carte style of cable/internet tv. I had over 110 channels, but only kept tabs on about 7 channels.
Logical
(22,457 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)weekly basis.
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)and Hulu is going away soon - not worth the ads.
At some point, I hope HBO and some of the others decide its more in their interests to follow the netflix model and let people stream online.
Why should I have to get cable if I have internet access? It all becomes redundant. and I'd much rather pay a small subscription fee for what I want (on demand) than a large cable bill for a pile of crap I mostly have no use for.