News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

DirecTV agrees to buy Dish Network for $1

Started by LM117, September 30, 2024, 08:35:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

SP Cook

I feel really sorry for you.  It must be difficult to be unable to disagree with people without actually discussing their points, but rather to just insult them.


1995hoo

#26
Quote from: SP Cook on October 01, 2024, 02:18:32 PMI feel really sorry for you.  It must be difficult to be unable to disagree with people without actually discussing their points, but rather to just insult them.

Thanks for proving my point.

But you know what, let me respond to the following paragraph, because I think a lot of your other paragraphs consist of strawmen that don't actually address anything anyone else said but this one has some points of interest:

Quote- All discussions about so-called cord cutters begin and end with "I saved ______ and I don't miss ______ that much".  You do you.  I am not trying to save money.  I want every TV service there is, and the blunt fact is, things like Netflix are only intended as a supplement to real TV, not a substitute for it.  If you feal differently, you do you and enjoy counting your money.  I will be watching TV.

I couldn't care less about "every TV service there is." Let me explain: When we had DirecTV, some of the channels included Spanish-language programming (we don't speak Spanish), various religious channels (not of interest to us), various children's channels (likewise not of interest as we have no children), and various "adult" channels (about all I did with those was snicker at some of the program descriptions when scrolling through the program guide). So if I say I don't miss various channels, I don't see how your little rant above in any way rebuts my statement or in any way undercuts its validity. You want the porno channels? Good for you. Feel (or, in your words, "feal") free to spend your money on them. That doesn't mean the rest of us are somehow ignorant or inferior because we don't want them. I save $70 a month over what I used to pay that I can use for other things, including some supplemental TV subscriptions that make my wife happy.

Give me a choice of making my wife happy or going along with what SP Cook says and I'll choose the former Every Damn Time.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

SP Cook

What part of "you do you" do you not understand?
 
You do you. 

Of course, one misses out on far more than Spanish (which the government requires them to carry), barker, preachers (who, umm, pay to be on the service and thus reduce your bill) and such channels.  You miss the meat of what television is.  Linear programming (if you read for understanding, I specifically said "so-called cord cutters" which I defined (you feel free to define it some other way, whatever) as people who rely ONLY on things like Netflix, Peacock, etc., to the exclusion of regular linear TV (which you can get via cable, DBS or the internet).   

And you do the same thing, as I said, "I saved......", which is where I tune people out.  If you liked what is on ABC last night, fine.  Maybe I didn't.  Different opinions.  But "I don't have ABC, I saved ....." is of no interest to me.

You do you.

I will be watching TV.

wxfree

My former television service provider, Charter, offers (or did several years ago) a "skinny bundle" that you find out about when you go in to cancel your regular service.  I've never seen it advertised and I don't know if it's available only as a step-down or if you can go in and buy it.  They offered me my choice of 15 cable channels plus my local broadcast channels for $30, which was everything I watched for $50 less.  I decided to cancel the television service fully.  I hooked up an antenna for broadcast channels, even though I hadn't watched them in the previous decade, and the only thing I ever watch with it is old game shows, which I can also get on free streaming services.  The only regular television service I'm interested in is news.  I'd probably pay a little bit for a cable news channel.  But I only use it to be informed and not entertained or outraged, and these channels have web sites that give the information.  That plus a couple of newspapers (still the best source of news) gives me more than I can get through.  Other than news, everything I want to watch is on streaming services.  I'm not interested in the 54th season of Survivor (is that still running? I've never watched a single minute of it).  I like cooking shows.  I was watching Julia Child, Martin Yan, Justin Wilson, and the great chefs of the West on PBS before there were cooking channels.  I watched cooking channels for many years, but now they're mostly games and competitions, while the actual cooking shows are on streaming services.  Other than breaking news or spending a few minutes listening to headlines when I have nothing else to do, I don't think I'd watch much cable television if it were free.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

doorknob60

#29
This felt inevitable, considering the high infrastructure costs of running satellite TV, and the major decline in subscribers across the whole industry. Similar to the Sirius/XM merger in satellite radio. Hopefully the merger is successful and it can help their financial struggles, without screwing over customers (more than they already are, that is). But with the way things are going, I'm not optimistic. For rural people with poor internet, satellite can still be the best way to get video content, so it still has its place, as long as the networks are still airing.

I cancelled my Dish subscription just a couple years ago. I'm the only person my age I knew that had a cable/satellite subscription, which I only used for sports. I mainly watch college football, and until this year, I needed access to Pac-12 Network which was only available on Dish, and a few streaming services like Sling and Fubo (but not Hulu, Youtube TV, and others). Dish was the easiest place to get everything I needed, and the the user experience/DVR was very good (still the best of everything I've used), so I was willing to pay a bit of a premium.

But now that Pac-12 Network is gone, every sports network I need is on Youtube TV, which is the best "TV replacement" streaming service of the ones I've used (I did not like Sling, and Fubo was just okay and missing some channels). Picture quality is great and reliable, and the UI is good enough to find what I need (though I still think having channel numbers is the quickest way to get between networks once you memorize them). I can subscribe to YTTV for football season, then cancel in the off season, and save loads of money.

I have antenna which I can use year round when I'm not subscribed to YTTV, which I can pick up local news and some of the broadcast shows I might want to watch (not many). I have an HDHomerun so I can DVR shows locally, and keep the files forever if I want to (better than cable/satellite where it's stuck on their hardware, or streaming services where it expires after a few months).

If it wasn't for sports, I wouldn't even touch these cable replacement streamers like YTTV, but it's great that we have that option now. Hopefully they don't start up with annual contracts or anything like that. The ease of signing up and cancelling is the best part of streaming. Honestly if I could have turned on Dish for 4 months per year then cancelled it the rest of the year with the click of a button, I might have kept it. But that's not how it works, they make you sign a contract and lease equipment.

ZLoth

If you want to find a streaming service that carries the programs you want, you can use Streamable, scroll to the bottom, and add your teams and market.

It's kinda ironic that, around 20 years ago, Dish attempted to purchase DirecTV, but anti-trust stopped the merger. Now, it's DirecTV acquiring Dish at a time when the multichannel providers are losing subscribers. The quantity of the channels does not equal quality. Due to regulations, some channels were carried as either part of the public service requirement, or some stations (notably religious ones) insisting on "must carry". And, through contractual requirements, in order for the multichannel provider to carry wanted channels E and D as well as the local group of channel A, they also have to carry the channels that are less popular. We had a carriage dispute earlier this month with DirecTV and Disney that prevent the carriage of ESPN for the first Monday Night Football game. Per NFL regulations, the TV stations in the primary markets get to carry the game locally, but in this case, the carriage dispute extended to the Disney-owned ABC stations in New York and San Francisco.

Right now, it's only the sports that is causing some subscribers to hold onto their multichannel provider subscriptions, but the National and Regional Sports Networks charge a high per-subscriber fee for carriage whether or not those folks are watching, and those contracts specify which packages (usually all but the non-advertised lowest tier) those channels are carried. Dish Network dropped all of the regional sports a year or so.

If you are into streaming, two services to check out are Kanopy and Hoopla which is probably being carried through your local public library or school. It's "free", and both carried movies and TV show which are fairly recent.
Don't Drive Distrac... SQUIRREL!

Scott5114

#31
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2024, 09:04:40 AMShe had enough trouble understanding how to use the Amazon Fire Stick I got her so that she could watch Hamilton when Disney+ carried it (she subscribed for a month so she could see that, and I had to get her the Fire Stick because the older Roku my father had bought couldn't access Disney+).

I'll be honest here—I have a hard time using the Fire Stick. The UI is kind of godawful, and I don't watch enough TV to have an intuitive understanding of how it works.

I miss when you could turn the TV on and type in '09' and sometimes Bob Barker would be there.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

1995hoo

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 02, 2024, 12:36:16 AM....

I miss when you could turn the TV on and type in '09' and sometimes Bob Barker would be there.

That's what I was getting at in my earlier comment about my wife's grip about using a streaming service:

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2024, 09:04:40 AM....

And my wife certainly complains about how she misses the days "when you just turn on the TV and the show comes on." Now she has to turn it on, load the appropriate app, etc. I get it. ....

Of course, her comment makes it sound like a long time ago, which isn't really true. We had DirecTV until early 2020 and with their service you simply turned it on (the one remote operated both the TV and the DirecTV box) and the last channel you were watching appeared on the screen. With YouTube TV you have to navigate to the correct icon, load the app, and select your name on the login screen, so it takes a few more seconds and if you plan to watch live TV (as opposed to using the cloud DVR to pick up mid-show and skip the ads) you need to turn it on shortly before the show is scheduled to begin to account for the slight delay. I find all that relatively trivial, although I have noticed the Fire Cube is slower than the Apple TV downstairs or the Fire Stick in the master bedroom (maybe that means I need to replace the Cube with a newer one). Regardless of what SP Cook claims to believe (and I don't believe he's serious about most of his bluster anyway), there's nothing wrong or stupid about selecting your TV provider based on balancing the monthly cost with the service you desire, as well as considering other things like reliability (no more rain fade since we dropped satellite, for example). When DirecTV wasn't giving us a benefit worth the additional $70 a month it cost over YouTube TV, we switched. Any normal, rational person can understand the logic of doing that. (And SP Cook's reference to the stupid expression "you do you" doesn't change anything, because that expression inherently means, "You're wrong, but do whatever you want." In this case, I'm not "wrong.")

Quote from: Scott5114 on October 02, 2024, 12:36:16 AMI'll be honest here—I have a hard time using the Fire Stick. The UI is kind of godawful, and I don't watch enough TV to have an intuitive understanding of how it works.

....

I find Amazon's app store somewhat hard to use because there seems to be no rhyme nor reason to the results it displays when you search for something. You know, sitting here now typing on a desktop PC makes me wonder whether it's possible to use Amazon's website to search for TV apps and then push them to the respective device, similar to the way you buy an e-book and then have it push it to your Kindle or to the Kindle app on another device. Might be easier to do that because the PC then lets you hit Ctrl-F to search within the results.

I find it mildly annoying that there seems to be no way to change the default setting that when you turn on the Fire TV device, the first rows of icons are all advertising icons for Prime Video and similar such that you have to scroll down three rows to get to your preferred apps. This is, again, one that's more annoying on the Fire Cube than on the Fire Sticks because I find the Cube is a little slower. (Why do we have the Cube? Originally we were interested in its voice-control capabilities. But that wound up proving less useful than advertised because we found we have to keep the microphone muted lest something on the TV trigger the Alexa function, which in turn causes it to mute the TV. The Cube is also more useful on that particular TV because I occasionally swap the HDMI cable to an Apple TV for some uses. Can't easily do that with a Fire Stick because it would require accessing the back of the TV, which is difficult in that particular location.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

vdeane

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2024, 09:19:05 AMAnd SP Cook's reference to the stupid expression "you do you" doesn't change anything, because that expression inherently means, "You're wrong, but do whatever you want." In this case, I'm not "wrong."
SP Cook seems to have decided that expressions like "cord cutting" and "you do you" mean what he says they mean, and not what everyone else understands them to mean.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

1995hoo

#34
Quote from: vdeane on October 02, 2024, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2024, 09:19:05 AMAnd SP Cook's reference to the stupid expression "you do you" doesn't change anything, because that expression inherently means, "You're wrong, but do whatever you want." In this case, I'm not "wrong."
SP Cook seems to have decided that expressions like "cord cutting" and "you do you" mean what he says they mean, and not what everyone else understands them to mean.

You know, it's interesting. I just used Ctrl-F to search the thread for "cord cut" (I used the shorter form so as to pick up other forms like "cord cutter" or the like). It returned eight results, not counting this reply as I type it. The only use of that term prior to SP Cook's comments was by Bobby5280. I don't believe he was saying anything about any particular way of receiving TV service so much as he was using the phrase as a generic way to refer to dropping cable or satellite service, which is a commonly accepted meaning for that term:

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 30, 2024, 03:23:02 PM....

Many of those network may ultimately disappear anyway. The cord cutting trend does not look like it is reversing itself. And it won't stop as long as the cable networks keep raising prices. They try to act like they're not, but whenever they demand more money from the service provider (such as DirecTV) those increased costs will get passed on to the customer. It's easy to see customers are sick of that shit.

The next four uses of that term all come from SP Cook's post (and the one after that comes from my quotation of his post) in which he ranted about "TRUE cord cutters," "SO-CALLED cord cutters," and "FAKE cord cutters" (all-caps usage his). The next usage after that is again in his response castigating me for not agreeing with him, and the remaining usage after that comes from your comment to which I am replying now.

All of that, and especially his use of "TRUE cord cutters," "SO-CALLED cord cutters," and "FAKE cord cutters" (especially when nobody else in the thread was claiming to be a "cord cutter" anyway), was part of what prompted my prior comment, which I stand by because I think it's SP Cook's standard approach:

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2024, 01:33:23 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 01, 2024, 12:52:42 PMblah blah blah

Do you ever post something without the arrogant, know-it-all condescension schtick? If not, give it a try.

I don't view my switching from DirecTV to YouTube TV to be "cord cutting" (and it wouldn't make sense anyway if you want to get hypertechnical, given that a satellite dish isn't really "corded" in the sense that cable TV is). YouTube TV is what's sometimes called a "cable replacement service." No more, no less. I view it as a way to get almost everything I want to watch for $70 less per month than I used to pay to DirecTV. According to SP Cook, that's stupid, but my name is not Rockefeller and I can find some good uses for that $840 a year.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

SP Cook

See.  It is possible to actually have a take. 

Should have tried that in the first place.  Rather than "blah, blah, blah" and name calling.

Adulting is fun.

1995hoo

Thanks for continuing to underscore your nature as an arrogant condescending know-it-all.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Scott5114

Quote from: SP Cook on October 02, 2024, 02:14:10 PMSee.  It is possible to actually have a take. 

Should have tried that in the first place.  Rather than "blah, blah, blah" and name calling.

Adulting is fun.

Does this post actually add anything of value to the forum?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

froggie

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 30, 2024, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 30, 2024, 10:40:37 AMI don't even know if I see a point in satellite service continuing to exist. Given how many times I've been in hotels and restaurants where it craps out due to a gentle rain I'm shocked it's survived what's now approaching 40 years.

I'd make the same argument for radio, but at least being on the road satellite works where no cell signal exists, though companies like Honda aren't installing Sirius/XM units in new cars anymore.

Aren't there still plenty of rural areas that don't have high speed internet? Satellite would make more sense there.

Yep.  I live in one.  Limited fiber/cable service (closest to me is 5 miles away), limited cell service (I get 1 bar of LTE if I stand the right way in one corner of the house), so satellite is the only realistic TV-related option for us.  We do have LTE-based Internet in our house, but the tower we ping to is 20 miles away and it has the same precipitation-based gaps that satellite does.

Our town joined with other nearby towns in a Communications District a couple years ago with the intent to leverage state and federal grants to build out a fiber network, and construction has begun on that network.  But we estimate we're 3 to 5 years away from them actually reaching our road.

Regarding what SP initially posted about cord-cutting (before devolving into a flame war), I am of the viewpoint that the only way to TRULY cord-cut is to stop watching shows and movies.  You're either paying through the nose for cable, paying through the nose for satellite, or paying through the nose for both streaming services AND the Internet to use them.  Streaming eats up a lot of bandwidth.  And it doesn't even need to be actual shows.  Half of my monthly internet bill is because my father-in-law lives on Youtube.

ZLoth

Quote from: Froggie on October 03, 2024, 07:49:34 AMRegarding what SP initially posted about cord-cutting (before devolving into a flame war), I am of the viewpoint that the only way to TRULY cord-cut is to stop watching shows and movies.  You're either paying through the nose for cable, paying through the nose for satellite, or paying through the nose for both streaming services AND the Internet to use them.

I'm still a believer in physical media when it comes to movies, tv shows, and music. (When it comes to audiobooks, I prefer digital for space reasons). I set up a media server at home and have set up both a Plex and Audiobookshelf instances for digital copies of my physical media libraries (yes, they are backed up), thus there is less dependency on the streaming services which, unfortunately, have the history of removing digital copies of more niche titles. Just take a look at what happened to titles that were previously available on both Disney+ and Max, not to mention digital libraries that complete disappeared without compensation for those that were using Funimation and/or RedBox. Heck, I have titles in my physical collection that are both out-of-print and never available for legitimate streaming (e.g. The Lathe of Heaven (1980) or Lathe of Heaven (2002)).

Don't Drive Distrac... SQUIRREL!

Bobby5280

#40
I like physical media (movies on disc and music on CD). But I'm afraid it's going to go the way of the do do bird.

20 years ago the movie studios really put a lot of work into their retail movie disc releases, especially in the early glory days of DVD. For example, I love the packaging for the original 2-disc DVD release of Fight Club. That movie turns 25 years old on October 15. The discs were loaded with all kinds of extras. It had a printed booklet titled "How to Start a Fight" and had a bunch of production notes inside.

Today retail movie disc products mostly just suck. Open the plastic case and it's usually just a bare disc inside. The contents on the disc are often the movie and little else. It's a bare bones affair. In the past Blu-ray had a big advantage of bigger audio-video bit rates versus what one could get via streaming. Now I have a gigabit Internet connection and movies via streaming look every bit as good as the Blu-ray discs.

My biggest problem with buying movies on disc these days: I watch most new movies just one time and that's enough. I don't feel like watching it again, much less owning a copy of it. I learned my lesson about blind-buying DVDs over 20 years ago. There's only so much shelf space for movies that get watched a couple or so times and then never again.

Music on disc has far more repeat-use value. But the first thing I do when buying a new CD is I put it in my computer and RIP the LPCM WAV data off of it using Adobe Audition. I'll make high bit rate MP3 and FLAC versions of the song files, along with adding cover art and other metadata. Those copies get loaded onto my smart phone or the SSD plugged into one of my truck's USB ports.

My 2018 Silverado was the last year model of that truck that had a built-in CD player. I rarely use the one I have. Built-in CD/DVD drives have been removed from just about all new notebook computers and they're becoming a rarity in desktop cases. Electronics companies have been discontinuing lines of CD, DVD and Blu-ray players. I hope the industry continues making at least some of those devices. If they stop production on them entirely that will put a lot of existing collections of CDs, DVDs and Blu-rays at risk. Over time those discs can develop "laser rot" too.

vdeane

Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2024, 07:49:34 AMI am of the viewpoint that the only way to TRULY cord-cut is to stop watching shows and movies.  You're either paying through the nose for cable, paying through the nose for satellite, or paying through the nose for both streaming services AND the Internet to use them.
I feel like lumping internet costs in is a niche situation.  Internet service is practically a utility at this point, on par with electricity or phone/cell service, and outside of mobile hot spots, it costs the same whether you stream a little, a lot, or not at all.

Not to mention that "cord cutting" was always about paying less (although that has diluted a lot from when Netflix had just about everything for $7.99/month and Hulu was free).

Quote from: ZLoth on October 03, 2024, 11:21:49 AM
Quote from: Froggie on October 03, 2024, 07:49:34 AMRegarding what SP initially posted about cord-cutting (before devolving into a flame war), I am of the viewpoint that the only way to TRULY cord-cut is to stop watching shows and movies.  You're either paying through the nose for cable, paying through the nose for satellite, or paying through the nose for both streaming services AND the Internet to use them.

I'm still a believer in physical media when it comes to movies, tv shows, and music. (When it comes to audiobooks, I prefer digital for space reasons). I set up a media server at home and have set up both a Plex and Audiobookshelf instances for digital copies of my physical media libraries (yes, they are backed up), thus there is less dependency on the streaming services which, unfortunately, have the history of removing digital copies of more niche titles. Just take a look at what happened to titles that were previously available on both Disney+ and Max, not to mention digital libraries that complete disappeared without compensation for those that were using Funimation and/or RedBox. Heck, I have titles in my physical collection that are both out-of-print and never available for legitimate streaming (e.g. The Lathe of Heaven (1980) or Lathe of Heaven (2002)).


I don't worry about physical media for music because it's still possible to buy DRM-free MP3s.  Sadly, movies and TV shows don't afford the same freedom, so I'm not comfortable "buying" a digital copy just to have studios yank it away whenever there's a copyright spat, tax write-off, or desire to pretend something wasn't made.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

MikeTheActuary

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 04:02:36 PMI would agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. I don't find it dramatically cheaper than what I once paid for cable, if any cheaper at all.

If you're subscribing to a service like YouTube TV or Fubo that offers a multi-channel equivalent to CATV/DBS service, the cost difference is limited.

However, if you take advantage of the no-contract terms at many of the streaming services, you can subscribe to one, binging there for the month, then changing to a different service the next month....that can be quite a bit cheaper for more-than-minimal CATV/DBS service.

JayhawkCO

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 03, 2024, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 04:02:36 PMI would agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. I don't find it dramatically cheaper than what I once paid for cable, if any cheaper at all.

If you're subscribing to a service like YouTube TV or Fubo that offers a multi-channel equivalent to CATV/DBS service, the cost difference is limited.

However, if you take advantage of the no-contract terms at many of the streaming services, you can subscribe to one, binging there for the month, then changing to a different service the next month....that can be quite a bit cheaper for more-than-minimal CATV/DBS service.

The biggest challenge is being a soccer fan. My team's games this year are on Paramount+, Peacock, USA, and NBC. I use an HD antenna for local channels, which lets me use Sling instead of YoutubeTV for USA, but still need two more streaming services and I'm at $70 a month alone just to watch them.

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 03, 2024, 04:00:26 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 03, 2024, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 04:02:36 PMI would agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. I don't find it dramatically cheaper than what I once paid for cable, if any cheaper at all.

If you're subscribing to a service like YouTube TV or Fubo that offers a multi-channel equivalent to CATV/DBS service, the cost difference is limited.

However, if you take advantage of the no-contract terms at many of the streaming services, you can subscribe to one, binging there for the month, then changing to a different service the next month....that can be quite a bit cheaper for more-than-minimal CATV/DBS service.

The biggest challenge is being a soccer fan. My team's games this year are on Paramount+, Peacock, USA, and NBC. I use an HD antenna for local channels, which lets me use Sling instead of YoutubeTV for USA, but still need two more streaming services and I'm at $70 a month alone just to watch them.

I'm fortunate in that I get Peacock for free because Xfinity is my internet provider. I only pay for Paramount+ from mid-September to mid-May.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

JayhawkCO

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on October 03, 2024, 04:35:22 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 03, 2024, 04:00:26 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 03, 2024, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 04:02:36 PMI would agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. I don't find it dramatically cheaper than what I once paid for cable, if any cheaper at all.

If you're subscribing to a service like YouTube TV or Fubo that offers a multi-channel equivalent to CATV/DBS service, the cost difference is limited.

However, if you take advantage of the no-contract terms at many of the streaming services, you can subscribe to one, binging there for the month, then changing to a different service the next month....that can be quite a bit cheaper for more-than-minimal CATV/DBS service.

The biggest challenge is being a soccer fan. My team's games this year are on Paramount+, Peacock, USA, and NBC. I use an HD antenna for local channels, which lets me use Sling instead of YoutubeTV for USA, but still need two more streaming services and I'm at $70 a month alone just to watch them.

I'm fortunate in that I get Peacock for free because Xfinity is my internet provider. I only pay for Paramount+ from mid-September to mid-May.

Similar for me. I also cancel my Sling in the summer since I don't care about baseball.

vdeane

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on October 03, 2024, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 04:02:36 PMI would agree with everything you said except for the last clause in the last sentence. I don't find it dramatically cheaper than what I once paid for cable, if any cheaper at all.

If you're subscribing to a service like YouTube TV or Fubo that offers a multi-channel equivalent to CATV/DBS service, the cost difference is limited.

However, if you take advantage of the no-contract terms at many of the streaming services, you can subscribe to one, binging there for the month, then changing to a different service the next month....that can be quite a bit cheaper for more-than-minimal CATV/DBS service.
That's an interesting point.  I think such would go against the spirit of cord cutting, however, since it's basically cable without the physical cable, while cord cutting has always been about saving money by not paying for "appointment TV" channels, not the physical cord.

Honestly, even with having all my subscriptions active at once, it's still cheaper than cable.  But then, all my "appointment TV" comes though the antenna, and at this point, it's pretty much just news (and Ghosts, but I can get that next day on Paramount+).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

1995hoo

Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2024, 01:00:25 PM....

I don't worry about physical media for music because it's still possible to buy DRM-free MP3s.  Sadly, movies and TV shows don't afford the same freedom, so I'm not comfortable "buying" a digital copy just to have studios yank it away whenever there's a copyright spat, tax write-off, or desire to pretend something wasn't made.

Even in the days when downloads from Apple's iTunes store had DRM applied, it was simple enough to get around that by burning the tracks to a CD-RW and then ripping them. The new ripped files didn't have the DRM. I don't hesitate to buy electronic copies of music (though I prefer FLAC or DSD downloads to .MP3—I just picked up a DSD copy of the Springsteen concert I attended last month), but I do make sure I have copies offloaded from PC for safekeeping.

Regarding movies, I can think of a couple of things of which I have copies that aren't as easily available nowadays. One is the original Star Wars trilogy prior to the 1997 "Special Editions." George Lucas made the originals essentially unavailable after 1997. The other is Disney's Song of the South, which has never been released on home video in any form in the United States but used to be available in the rest of the world (they've now pulled it out of PC concerns).

Overall, I agree with your comment about not wanting to give someone else control over my ability to listen to, or watch, what I choose. While I have never used Spotify, and while I don't listen to her music, I recall there was a kerfuffle a few years ago when Taylor Swift got her management to remove all of her music from said service. That's a reason why I don't rely on streaming services for music—who is to say some artist to whom I listen wouldn't do the same?
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Bobby5280

Quote from: 1995hooEven in the days when downloads from Apple's iTunes store had DRM applied, it was simple enough to get around that by burning the tracks to a CD-RW and then ripping them. The new ripped files didn't have the DRM. I don't hesitate to buy electronic copies of music (though I prefer FLAC or DSD downloads to .MP3—I just picked up a DSD copy of the Springsteen concert I attended last month), but I do make sure I have copies offloaded from PC for safekeeping.

I don't like buying music in a data-lossy compressed format like MP3 or AAC, even if the bit rate is relatively high. Sometimes I have to settle for MP3 if I want to buy only a song and not an album and there is no other alternative. I've bought a number of MP3 singles from Amazon. Lately I just listen to stuff on Amazon Music Unlimited (the streaming audio quality is much better than the "free" version you get with Prime Video). I'd rather have a lossless or uncompressed audio file. Usually that means buying a retail music CD. Of course CDs aren't perfect either, thanks to the way they master music these days.

I wouldn't bother ripping a MP3 file to a music CD (or converting the data to LPCM WAV format) just to shed DRM from the file. The WAV file is going to be much bigger but the audio quality will not be improved at all. It would be even more harmful to re-compress the audio file back into MP3 or AAC format. It's yet another step of lossy data compression. The situation is no different from the steps of generational loss when making copies of analog audio/video formats.

1995hoo

I agree with you about preferring to avoid lossy compression (note my reference to FLAC and DSD), although in the case of bootlegs (what we used to call "tape trading") I'd rather have an .MP3 than nothing at all. Also, I didn't mean to imply that I normally burned iTunes downloads to CD-RW and then re-ripped them—rather, my point was simply that it was easy to circumvent DRM via that route if you wanted to do so.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.