Alternatives to Cable/Satellite TV

SCcouple1990

Happy Horny Curvy Couple
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
4,713
We are paying more than we want for cable/internet, and are considering a change. We have young children, and enjoys sports. We are considering an antenna for local channels, and a set top box (Apple TV, Chrome, etc) , to use for a streaming service.

For those of you who have stopped cable/satellite television, what alternatives have you gone with, and what are the pros and cons of your choice?

Thanks for your feedback.
 
I have a boxee and several friends with similar systems. Seems the antennas universally suck if you live near mountains, a coast or the desert.
 
I have a digital antenna for local broadcasts. I use Netflix and Hulu for everything else. With the Roku (and others) device or a SmartTV, there's really no need for cable any more.
 
Digital Antenna for local, Roku for Netflix and Hulu. So much cheaper than cable. Cable companies deserve to go the way of Blockbuster Video. Fucking thieves.
 
We are paying more than we want for cable/internet, and are considering a change.

I'm waiting anxiously for Centurylink to upgrade their infrastructure so that "Prime" is available in my area. It's a DSL based video service that is similar to cable but it requires fiber-optic infrastructure. Last time I checked, their basic level of service bundled with DSL Internet was very competitive with Cox Cable's basic service with internet.

Sadly, the only other option is Cable-based Internet because DSL over copper infrastructure just can't handle internet and television if you've got more than one television and one computer. You'll need Fiber-optic DSL service or Cable-internet to support any of the streaming video choices.

So, find your best deal on fast Internet service and go from there; you may find that paying for each program/channel individually is going to add up fast and outgrow your cable package in the long run. If you can get it in your location, bundling a landline, DSL and DSL based video service through your phone company is probably your best bet.
 
We are paying for 50 mb service but cable one delivers less than 25. The entire town rides a microwave signal off a distant mountain. The last tech I talked to said they are bringing fiber optic, but it is a long time away still.
 
It's astounding how many people will pay hundreds of dollars a year for entertainment content that is entirely paid for through advertising.
 
It's astounding how many people will pay hundreds of dollars a year for entertainment content that is entirely paid for through advertising.

it's a tax of sorts;
to both subsidize the cost of productions
as well as mass distributions...

the premium services (ie hbo/cinemax/netflix/amazon et al)
have jumped full force into the original content pool
to assure subscribers remain...
and the results (as far as quality is concerned)
has never been better.

the majority of tv award nominations now go to the premium providers...
even basic "cable" components
(ie fx, amc, lifetime, et al)
have provided some of the best content
over the last 10? years...

the cable/satellite providers
offer a convenient, if oft pricey, platform
for most of the cutting edge content...

their subscribers still pay for quality new content
in a business model that covers the l and d (loss and damage)
accrued by piracy and grey watching...

an example...
in 2013, the disney conglomerate reported earnings in the 3rd quarter of over a billion us dollars...
in a company statement, they attributed the vast majority of that profit
to the espn and disney channel units...
(we are talking all of disney... film/theme parks/abc... and much more)

consider this:
the disney channels alone charge about $1.12 per household/month for its content (generally packaged in a basic cable contract)
the disney channels have over 100 million subscribing households...
$112 million/month income...
they are not providing $112 million worth of new content /month

so... yes... cable satellite is expensive
and yes... content providers can get very lucrative deals
but... do not confuse the fatted goose with the message bringers...

cable and satellite providers do quite well, but the bulk of the kitty goes to the content producers... (or rather- content distributors)

look into the number of well publicized "blackouts" of even the most basic of content over unit price to the cable/satellite providers...
(last year, time warner cable went to war with cbs over unit cost and a dozen or so major "cable " channels, showtime and the cbs network were blacked out for almost 2 months)
there have been others...

question is:

what is a reasonable cost/value for quality original content?

the concept of a "movie channel" is as tired as a central park horse in debutante season.

the expense of the cable/satellite templates is in what they package and provide conveniently...
it's not the second run flicks that drive the park ponies... but rather, the unique and new content that the component providers make available...

the answer, perhaps...
is to push away from the hot table...
allow the new content to become available on less expensive tables
(ie - curb your voracious appetite for the new new thing)
and...
by that, do you eventually hobble the apparatus?

hmmmm?

you want your breaking bad?
your orange is the new monthly bill?

then pay for it...
somehow.
somewhere...
 
It's astounding how many people will pay hundreds of dollars a year for entertainment content that is entirely paid for through advertising.
I don't pay for content, I pay for reliable reception. That pretty much eliminates satellite from consideration for me, even though the apartment complex does allow satellite dishes, which many don't.

Actually, I don't pay for even that much, as there's plenty of free streams for sporting events and programming, so I pay for affordable internet.
 
I subscribed to Aereo until the FCC shut it down. For everything else, torrents.
 
projectfreetv.com

and torrents.

Every now and then I'll hit up amazon/netflix and cancel as soon as I rag out all their new material.
 
I have Netflix and Amazon Prime. If I have a favorite network TV show then I download the app for that particular broadcast station and watch the most current episodes on there.
 
I got a Google Chromecast for Christmas & it's pretty awesome. Especially since it only cost $23. Any video I can watch on my laptop, I can watch on my widescreen tv instead. I found a couple of reliable websites where I can stream movies & cable tv shows. I'm currently burning through the first season of Fringe. Loved that show. Also watched John Wick on Friday. Great flick.
 
I'm PO'd at my Direct TV and am thinking of dropping it

We are paying more than we want for cable/internet, and are considering a change. We have young children, and enjoys sports. We are considering an antenna for local channels, and a set top box (Apple TV, Chrome, etc) , to use for a streaming service.

For those of you who have stopped cable/satellite television, what alternatives have you gone with, and what are the pros and cons of your choice?

Thanks for your feedback.
because they lied that Genie would cost me $3 a month more and it is really $26 more!!
But, I hate cable, and Dish sucks. I love sports and only cable or satellites provide the channels I want. I have an old antenna that pick3 up over 60 channels, (many in foreign languages). Is is HD, but there is no guide.
I would get ATT U-verse but there is no fiber optic here.
WH brought up a good point, that cable or fiber is Broadband, over 50MB, where I can only get 1.29mb through my two wire DSL. Doesn't matter what other boxes you get, you need broadband foremost.

Why Do I pay almost $4/day for a dish? I get a channel guide, 20-30 sports channels, can watch/record 5 shows at once, 200 channels are HD, 80 music channels, "cable" channels that air tv doesn't have, like espn, cnn, hist 1&2, sci, achd, amc, fsn, sec, com, tcm, etc, and I can skip most of the commercials. That's why I can't get rid of it.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top