AARoads Forum

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/30/media/directv-dish-network-merger/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/30/media/directv-dish-network-merger/index.html)

Supposedly the move won't affect existing Dish Network customers. For now. The "birds" currently in service don't stay operational forever (components wear out, orbits decay, etc). At some point the combined DirecTV/Dish entity will be forced to streamline to a single series of receivers and satellite dishes. That is if the company even lasts much longer.

I 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.

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.

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.

It would, but the problem is satellite internet is prohibitively expensive for a lot of those rural areas. Satellite ISPs charge a lot more per month on average than fiber or cable providers.

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 had satellite from 2001-2018, first with Dish and DirecTV. If a dish was improperly aligned, then "rain fade" would be a bigger problem. I had about two instances of "rain fade", and this was a extreme rainfall in California.

For many years, DBS was the only viable competition to the cable monopoly, especially if you wanted to watch programming in multiple rooms. Sure, there was C-band aka "Big Ugly Dish" (BUDs), but you could only watch programming on the same satellite. Many of those that had BUDs, especially in rural areas, were the early adopters of DBS.

One of the "killer apps" that DirecTV had was the NFL Sunday Ticket which was a loss leader for DirecTV, but was used to attract subscribers, and was one of the factors in AT&T acquring DirecTV. Even though YouTube now has the NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTV has a sub-license to provide Sunday Ticket for commercial establishments because of Internet limitations.

How people now consume media has changed over the years. Once upon a time, it was "appointment TV". Now, streaming is more convient.

Quote from: SectorZ on September 30, 2024, 10:40:37 AMI'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.

I did not know about SiriusXM, but I am aware of no more CDs or tape decks in new vehicles for years. Because of the smartphone revolution and unlimited data plans, it is much easier and more convient to stream the audio to the Bluetooth connection and listen to what you want. For the carmaker, its five pounds of mechanical parts that can be replaced with a silicon chip, with the dashboard real estate being used elsewhere.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 30, 2024, 10:53:27 AMAren't there still plenty of rural areas that don't have high speed internet? Satellite would make more sense there.

Satellite internet has high latency issues, plus the data usage can be capped.

Several companies installed fiber-lightwave lines in my area over the past few years, one of them buried their lines under the sidewalks, with small junction boxes in repoured slabs every couple of lots.  I see no future for copper pair and coax lines, nor do I see a future for geosnync home satellite services.

Mike

Originally companies like DirecTV and Dish gained popularity because they were often a more affordable alternative to the local cable TV company. Over the past few years the satellite TV companies have lost their price advantage. For a basic "Top 120" channels package and no premiums turned on Dish is charging over $120 per month. I remember the DishHD package in the late 2000's that cost around $40 per month.

During the past few years residential Internet speeds have improved radically. I don't know the details of it, but I think the government is subsidizing a lot of fiber optic cable installation in many cities and towns. At my home I went from having dial-up and then DSL on a copper phone line. Then I went to cable Internet when they boosted their speeds to 25Mb/s and 50Mb/s. Over the past year AT&T and Bluepeak both installed their own fiber lines in my neighborhood. My cable Internet service went from 50Mb/s to 1 Gigabit per second and the price dropped to $49 per month -thanks to new competitors.

Mobile Internet speeds have also improved radically. Companies like T-Mobile are selling cellular based home Internet setups. That may help more people living in small towns and rural areas get an alternative to satellite-based Internet. Still, coverage depends on the location.

Cable TV networks have done themselves no favors. Some channels (such as FX and IFC) are good. Too many just show non-stop reality TV garbage. I'm not into watching the anger pornography news networks either. If it wasn't for live sports broadcasts I probably wouldn't have any sort of cable TV at all. It would be enough to have an outdoor antenna for picking up local broadcast channels and then one or two streaming services like Netflix or Prime Video. I know lots of people who do that already. They're not even getting streaming cable packages like YouTubeTV or Hulu Live.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 30, 2024, 12:29:34 PMCable TV networks have done themselves no favors. Some channels (such as FX and IFC) are good. Too many just show non-stop reality TV garbage. I'm not into watching the anger pornography news networks either.

Very opinion based.  Obviously if those other shows and channels didn't make a profit for themselves or the cable companies, they wouldn't exist. 

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.

Satellites work where terrestrial broadcasts don't -- at sea and in the air. They have their place, but maybe just not for consumers.

No mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk. As that proliferates (or its competitors), it makes a satellite specifically for TV less and less useful.

Quote from: jeffandnicoleVery opinion based.  Obviously if those other shows and channels didn't make a profit for themselves or the cable companies, they wouldn't exist.

The "news" channels rake in a lot of money. But I suppose a cable channel would probably attract huge numbers of viewers if it aired public executions too.

The Weather Channel serves little purpose unless an actual disaster is in progress. Otherwise it's airing endless repeats of Ice Road Truckers or some other "reality" show. Why the MTV channel still calls itself "MTV" is a mystery. It's a laugh riot they still air an annual "video music awards" show. It's the same story for various other networks. The name of the network has little to do with what they show. National Geographic seems to be more about people in prison than nature documentaries. When the networks are not showing repeats of the same reality shows they're airing infomercials.

If all of these cable networks were profitable why do their parent media companies force service providers such as DirecTV to bundle a bunch of those various channels together? No one gets to hand-pick the channels they actually want to watch and put them into a "skinny" bundle. If customers could do that a bunch of those networks I mentioned would indeed cease to exist.

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.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk. As that proliferates (or its competitors), it makes a satellite specifically for TV less and less useful.

Starlink is quite a game changer.  I used it after it was installed on a cruise ship last fall (Holland America) and although there were some gaps as we were going across the Atlantic, the ability to stream quite a lot was amazing.  I also see this recommended in the future for those traveling the US with RVs or travel trailers.  This will likely put Hughes Net out of business and push the single satellite disc/cable company to the brink in a few years.

Only the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

Oh, great. DirecTV has gotten outrageously expensive and this will eliminate Dish as an option. No more threatening to switch to Dish as a negotiating tactic to get a rate reduction.

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

I 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.

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

Once sports channels such as ESPN and SEC Network are factored in, whatever price advantages streaming apps had disappears.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk.

I'm not gonna give my money to Elon Musk.

Anyways, remember when monopolies were illegal?

Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 30, 2024, 06:42:40 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk.

I'm not gonna give my money to Elon Musk.

Anyways, remember when monopolies were illegal?

I hate the guy too, but, similar to Tesla, he's showing what CAN be done and the competitors will follow.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 04:02:36 PM

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

I 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.

Quote from: brad2971 on September 30, 2024, 04:52:57 PM

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.  Most everyone that's at least 15 years from retirement age is replacing their viewing with streaming subscriptions to get at least some semblance of a-la-carte media channels.  It's a brave new world where people get to watch what they want, when they want, and for the most part, for less money that a standard cable or satellite TV package.

Once sports channels such as ESPN and SEC Network are factored in, whatever price advantages streaming apps had disappears.

It might depend on the sports stuff, but the combined amount of what I pay for the ad-free versions of Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Max, Amazon Prime, and Paramount+ is about half of what my parents are paying for a basic DirectTV subscription.

Quote from: MikieTimT on September 30, 2024, 03:39:51 PMOnly the older generation is keeping legacy broadcast viewing alive.

Indeed, see above.  Dad won't give up the DirecTV subscription and switch to streaming and when asked why it's an endless line of excuses that could be very easily solved if he were actually interested in switching.  "I don't want to pay for streaming."  It costs less than what you pay for DirecTV.  "I don't want to watch on my computer."  There are various devices you can get to watch on your TV (even connecting a laptop - which we have done!) (alternatively: "you do that already with YouTube").  "I don't want to lose my surround sound."  If we could get my laptop connected to the surround sound that time you and Mom wanted to watch a movie on my Max subscription, I'm sure anything else can be hooked up as well.  Even "you could watch NCIS whenever you want" gets met with "between CBS, ION, and a channel on DirecTV, it's only one day a week it isn't on". :ded:

At this point I'm convinced that the Boomers just don't want to give up channel surfing.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 30, 2024, 06:42:40 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 30, 2024, 01:13:05 PMNo mention of Starlink yet for all of the satellite talk.

I'm not gonna give my money to Elon Musk.

Anyways, remember when monopolies were illegal?

Starlink is also RIDICULOUSLY expensive, which is on brand for something owned by Elon Musk. Sure, it's helpful in situations like what's happening in NC and TN right now, but the people providing Starlink receivers to those areas had to spend an absolute truckload of money for it, and you sure don't see Elon chipping in to help in the relief effort.

We had DirecTV for many years, but after AT&T took over I had a dispute with them when a DVR died. They told me, in writing, that I didn't need to return the old box. Then they charged me for it and claimed the letter they sent was in error. I got nowhere fighting with them, so I disputed the charge with American Express, who ruled in my favor after DirecTV refused to respond to the inquiry. Then they cancelled my autobill because my "card was declined" and they threatened to take the matter to a collection agency (it got resolved short of that). We switched to YouTube TV shortly thereafter; interestingly, the guy on the phone didn't even try to convince me to stay because when I told him what happened there wasn't much he could say.

The only thing I particularly miss is baseball because YouTube TV, like all streaming services, doesn't carry MASN, and spoofing my location to use MLB.tv was just plain too much of a hassle.

---

Quote from: vdeane on September 30, 2024, 10:06:55 PMIndeed, see above.  Dad won't give up the DirecTV subscription and switch to streaming and when asked why it's an endless line of excuses that could be very easily solved if he were actually interested in switching.  "I don't want to pay for streaming."  It costs less than what you pay for DirecTV.  "I don't want to watch on my computer."  There are various devices you can get to watch on your TV (even connecting a laptop - which we have done!) (alternatively: "you do that already with YouTube").  "I don't want to lose my surround sound."  If we could get my laptop connected to the surround sound that time you and Mom wanted to watch a movie on my Max subscription, I'm sure anything else can be hooked up as well.  Even "you could watch NCIS whenever you want" gets met with "between CBS, ION, and a channel on DirecTV, it's only one day a week it isn't on". :ded:

I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a function of comfort with what they have combined with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." About 20 years or so ago when I first got a DVR, I offered to get my parents one for Christmas, but they declined. "It would change the way we do things too much." Well, yes, that's the idea! (I certainly remember the fussing about putting in the correct videotape depending on which night of the week it was.) Of course they eventually got one when they switched from cable to Verizon FIOS.

If my father were still around I think he might be more willing to consider switching to a streaming service, but my mother will never do that now because it would be too big an adjustment from what she's used to having. She 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+). Plus, because I'm her tech support since my brother moved away, I'd just as soon she stick with what she knows!

The argument that's never made sense to me—and is not one my mother has made, but rather is one I've heard from other people—is the argument that "cable replacement" streaming services like YouTube TV or Sling or the like are too confusing because they don't have channel numbers. The channel numbers are all arbitrary anyway and vary from provider to provider—and sometimes the same provider even rearranges them (I remember when I was in junior high school, the local cable company had MTV on channel 25, later moved it to 77, and later moved it again to 112). When we had DirecTV, ESPN was on 206, whereas my mother has Verizon FIOS and it's on 500-something. I only know one person who refers to any cable channels (as opposed to the local broadcast networks) by channel number. Everyone else says, for example, "It's on ESPN tomorrow night" or "It's on Monumental 2 because basketball is on the main channel" (referring to when the regional sports channel lights the alternate feed to air two games at once). It doesn't help to do what that one guy does when he says, for example, "The game is on 576." "OK, what channel is 576? We don't all have the same provider you do." (I note that YouTube TV, for one, allows you to rearrange the program guide so that the channels you watch most often are at the top. I have done that; my wife has not.)

I think some people have trouble with the concept that the streaming services are set up to be "platform-agnostic" to the extent possible. That is, they don't know what sort of device a given viewer will use—Apple TV, Amazon Fire Stick or Cube, Roku, native app on a smart TV, and I'm sure there are probably others. They all have different remote controls and the services' software is therefore set up to allow you to access the features regardless of what device you use. I think that confuses some people because it creates a steeper learning curve than they might otherwise have.

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. But I also like saving $70 a month versus what we paid for DirecTV. We use some of that difference to pay for a couple of other services. I also like that we can log in separately to YouTube TV and have our own DVR queues, our own set of recommended programming, etc.—as long as she remembers to switch it to her account before she starts watching Hallmark movies or some such that I don't want cluttering up my recommendations. (Sort of like how a downside of sharing a grocery points card is that it will sometimes offer me e-coupons for Tampax or other such things that men don't use and don't want to know about.)

IMHO,

- The original business plan for DBS was simply to serve rural America.  There were, and still are, millions of people who cannot get cable that is worth a darn, or any at all.

- Internet service?  See above.  REGARDLESS of who is in political or economic power, there will ALWAYS be people in rural America who cannot get services.  Basic economics, and basic political science. 

- DBS boomed and became a product that suburban and urban customers, who could get cable, used, because it was so vastly superior.  And if you think that the cable of today would have ever existed without DBS to push that industry, you don't understand.  Cable was just fine with charging high prices for 12 to 20 ghosting channels.  It is an industry based on doing the least it can for its customers.

- Let us define terms fairly.  A TRUE cord cutter depends on things that are free (if you count the internet service itself as a sunk cost), which is FAST services like Roku, Tubi, etc., which are collections of ancient reruns hacked up with commercials, preachers, and loons, along with YouTube, which is fine but it is what it is; A SO-CALLED cord cutter has switched from PAYING for cable or DBS, to PAYING for on-demand movie services like Netflix, Peacock, etc.  More about that below.  A FAKE cord cutter is someone who has switched from PAYING for one linear set of real TV channels via DBS or cable, to PAYING for a similar set of real TV channels via internet based packages like YouTubeTV, Hulu + Live TV, DirecTV Stream, Sling, etc.  These people have cut no cords, they have simply switched from one provider to another.

- Because of the existence of such packages of liner channels, the consumer, who previously had only three choices (cable, DISH, DirecTV) now has maybe a dozen, so this should sail through the government.  Hopefully with a caveat that rural Americans without internet service get a price break from DirecTV.

- 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.

- As the original business model for DBS is rural America, and rural America is still there, it will survive.  You won't see a lot of dishes in the suburbs, just like you don't see those big white propane tanks, but get out in the country and you will see plenty, for a long time to come.

- The other side people forget is the commercial side.  Many businesses cannot get, and do not otherwise need, video quality internet (times multiple TVs for a sports bar, etc.)  Its not worth it to provide said internet in many shopping areas, where no business other than the sports bar needs any more than something to run the credit card machine on.

- DirecTV has in hand a deal with Disney to sell channels by genre.  It will, as the deals expire, get similar deals with the rest of Big Media.  The previous system was that you had to pay big money for 150 - 200 channels, some of which had no appeal in your household.  The new deal, and internet based linear TV providers and cable will follow suit, will be you just have to buy the genres you want.  Not to be stereotypical, by single male living alone?  Maybe just the sports channels.  Maybe just the news channels, or ever just the news channels you like.  Female household?  Maybe no sports, just the Hallmark-ish channels.  No kids?  No need for Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, Cartoon Network. Etc.

- The one type of channel that will be going away is what I call the "general rerun channels".  FX, TNT, USA Network, etc.  Leaving out their sports, there is nothing on these channels but reruns of 20 plus year old network dramas.  Everyone who wants to see them has seen them, and the networks are not really making a whole lot of new such shows.  This is better presented via non-linear streaming services like Paramount, etc.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 01, 2024, 08:28:02 AMand you sure don't see Elon chipping in to help in the relief effort.

I'm pretty sure Elon only helps with things when he can be seen by the press as a hero swooping in to save people.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2024, 09:04:40 AMThe channel numbers are all arbitrary anyway and vary from provider to provider—and sometimes the same provider even rearranges them (I remember when I was in junior high school, the local cable company had MTV on channel 25, later moved it to 77, and later moved it again to 112).

And then there are hotels, which for whatever reason have their own separate channel lineups shared with nobody else.  The last two places I stayed were particularly noteworthy; one had a completely arbitrary selection of channels and not just the numbers (their choice of NBC affiliate was different from what the local cable providers use and they had Global but not CTV - and the listing in the room said the reverse, which would have been helpful to know the night the audio wasn't working on CBS!), and the other didn't have channel numbers at all, with a full lineup of digital cable in alphabetical order (VERY annoying, since it meant a LOT of scrolling just to get between ABC and CBS).

Quote from: SP Cook on October 01, 2024, 12:52:42 PMCable was just fine with charging high prices for 12 to 20 ghosting channels.  It is an industry based on doing the least it can for its customers.

Quite true.  Just look at Spectrum internet where I am.  Where it's good and where it's garbage correspond almost 1:1 with where Verizon FiOS is available.

Quote from: SP Cook on October 01, 2024, 12:52:42 PMREGARDLESS of who is in political or economic power, there will ALWAYS be people in rural America who cannot get services.  Basic economics, and basic political science. 

If this were always true, the same would be true for landline telephone service and electricity.  But back then, the government said "these are essential" and it got done.  Now we can't because it's "socialism". :rolleyes:

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you want to find a streaming service that carries the programs you want, you can use Streamable (https://thestreamable.com/live-tv-streaming), 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 (https://markholtz.info/kanopy) and Hoopla (https://markholtz.info/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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for continuing to underscore your nature as an arrogant condescending know-it-all.

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?

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.

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 (https://markholtz.info/plex) and Audiobookshelf (https://markholtz.info/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) (https://reelgood.com/movie/the-lathe-of-heaven-1980) or Lathe of Heaven (2002) (https://reelgood.com/movie/lathe-of-heaven-2002)).

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.

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 (https://markholtz.info/plex) and Audiobookshelf (https://markholtz.info/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) (https://reelgood.com/movie/the-lathe-of-heaven-1980) or Lathe of Heaven (2002) (https://reelgood.com/movie/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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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+).

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?

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.

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.

Am I not alone here in my belief that there will someday (soon, likely) be a real, serious rethink of the entire concept of 'copyright'?  This including every aspect of it, such as what one can do with material, how it can be used and distributed and the lengths of protection terms, as far as including the aspect of its overall effect on the culture and history.  Disney keeping 'Song of the South' bottled up bottled up, even though it has been so long since it was made or the original news reports of the 2001-09-11 attacks are glaring examples.  OTOH, has anyone in here seen 'Birth of a Nation', even though it is now public domain due to its age?

Mike

O.o

Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2024, 12:37:49 PMOTOH, has anyone in here seen 'Birth of a Nation', even though it is now public domain due to its age?

Which version?

Quote from: ZLoth on October 04, 2024, 05:17:29 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2024, 12:37:49 PMOTOH, has anyone in here seen 'Birth of a Nation', even though it is now public domain due to its age?

Which version?

the version that Woodrow Wilson considered to be his favorite film.

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2024, 06:50:45 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on October 04, 2024, 05:17:29 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2024, 12:37:49 PMOTOH, has anyone in here seen 'Birth of a Nation', even though it is now public domain due to its age?

Which version?

the version that Woodrow Wilson considered to be his favorite film.

There is the 1993 restoration, the 2011 restoration, and the public domain version.

Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2024, 12:37:49 PMAm I not alone here in my belief that there will someday (soon, likely) be a real, serious rethink of the entire concept of 'copyright'?  This including every aspect of it, such as what one can do with material, how it can be used and distributed and the lengths of protection terms, as far as including the aspect of its overall effect on the culture and history.  Disney keeping 'Song of the South' bottled up bottled up, even though it has been so long since it was made or the original news reports of the 2001-09-11 attacks are glaring examples.  OTOH, has anyone in here seen 'Birth of a Nation', even though it is now public domain due to its age?

Mike

One can only hope, but I'm not sure how likely it is given the power of corporate lobbyists.  Note how Micky Mouse almost entered public domain several times, but Disney kept intervening to get copyright protection extended.  I'm actually shocked that it was ever allowed to happen.

At this point, copyright is actually working against it originally intended purpose of facilitating the expansion of the body of artistic work.  It takes so long for things to go public domain that all but the timeless classics will be too old for anyone to care about them by the time that happens.  And for digitally produced works (like just about anything modern), they probably won't even exist by then!  And publishers shoving works in a vault and using copyright to prevent their distribution is entirely against the reason copyright law exists in the first place.  What needs to happen is for the term to be shortened drastically, and for copyright filers to be required to give a complete and unaltered copy of the work to the Library of Congress immediately when its finished so that it can distribute the work once it goes public domain.  We don't need more works to end up like Batgirl or Song of the South.

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.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Flag_of_Edward_England.svg/320px-Flag_of_Edward_England.svg.png)

Quote from: vdeane on October 04, 2024, 10:10:16 PM

Quote from: mgk920 on October 04, 2024, 12:37:49 PMAm I not alone here in my belief that there will someday (soon, likely) be a real, serious rethink of the entire concept of 'copyright'?  This including every aspect of it, such as what one can do with material, how it can be used and distributed and the lengths of protection terms, as far as including the aspect of its overall effect on the culture and history.  Disney keeping 'Song of the South' bottled up bottled up, even though it has been so long since it was made or the original news reports of the 2001-09-11 attacks are glaring examples.  OTOH, has anyone in here seen 'Birth of a Nation', even though it is now public domain due to its age?

Mike

One can only hope, but I'm not sure how likely it is given the power of corporate lobbyists.  Note how Micky Mouse almost entered public domain several times, but Disney kept intervening to get copyright protection extended.  I'm actually shocked that it was ever allowed to happen.

At this point, copyright is actually working against it originally intended purpose of facilitating the expansion of the body of artistic work.  It takes so long for things to go public domain that all but the timeless classics will be too old for anyone to care about them by the time that happens.  And for digitally produced works (like just about anything modern), they probably won't even exist by then!  And publishers shoving works in a vault and using copyright to prevent their distribution is entirely against the reason copyright law exists in the first place.  What needs to happen is for the term to be shortened drastically, and for copyright filers to be required to give a complete and unaltered copy of the work to the Library of Congress immediately when its finished so that it can distribute the work once it goes public domain.  We don't need more works to end up like Batgirl or Song of the South.

In fact, that spirit of that law is in the main body of the US Constitution,
Article. I.  Section. 8. reads . . . "The Congress shall have Power . . . (pp 7) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . ."

Current USA copyright law has strayed far from that ideal and a few years ago, Congress had no further appetite for any more protection term extensions.  (Hey, at least it's a start.)

Mike

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

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.

Yes, Internet is essentially a utility.  But I would disagree that lumping Internet costs in is "niche".  Streaming is bandwidth-intensive, and many of us in rural areas either don't have that level of bandwidth available, or are paying much more for it than for a basic Internet package.

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 03:55:51 PM

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

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.

Yes, Internet is essentially a utility.  But I would disagree that lumping Internet costs in is "niche".  Streaming is bandwidth-intensive, and many of us in rural areas either don't have that level of bandwidth available, or are paying much more for it than for a basic Internet package.

Meanwhile, in the urban/suburban areas, a internet service with that level of bandwidth IS the basic Internet package.

^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I'm able to stream HD video just fine with my basic Internet through Verizon FiOS.

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I've never even heard of data caps actually being implemented on residential internet plans.  A couple ISPs from other parts of the country made the news for attempting it, but never actually implemented it thanks to intense push-back.  So yes, unlimited data on wired internet is "basic" where I live.  I don't even have the slightest clue how much data I use each month.

Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2024, 07:15:43 AM

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I've never even heard of data caps actually being implemented on residential internet plans.  A couple ISPs from other parts of the country made the news for attempting it, but never actually implemented it thanks to intense push-back.  So yes, unlimited data on wired internet is "basic" where I live.  I don't even have the slightest clue how much data I use each month.

I think he was trying to refer to speed rather than data.

Quote from: vdeane on October 12, 2024, 08:42:16 PM

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 03:55:51 PM

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

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.

Yes, Internet is essentially a utility.  But I would disagree that lumping Internet costs in is "niche".  Streaming is bandwidth-intensive, and many of us in rural areas either don't have that level of bandwidth available, or are paying much more for it than for a basic Internet package.

Meanwhile, in the urban/suburban areas, a internet service with that level of bandwidth IS the basic Internet package.

Ahhh, the joys of suburban, exurban or rural living!   :cool:

Mike

The availability of high-speed Internet was a major factor in selecting my home over five years ago. At that time, AT&T was still putting down the fiber in the neighborhood, but the cable broadband connectivity meant that the upload speed of my gigabit internet (35Mbps) was higher than my download speed of my ADSL connection (15-20Mbps). With fiber, I have almost gigabit upload and download speeds which allows me to stream from my own media server with no data caps.

Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2024, 07:15:43 AM

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I've never even heard of data caps actually being implemented on residential internet plans.  A couple ISPs from other parts of the country made the news for attempting it, but never actually implemented it thanks to intense push-back.  So yes, unlimited data on wired internet is "basic" where I live.  I don't even have the slightest clue how much data I use each month.

At least where I live, Mediacom has data limits on all but their most expensive plan.

Quote from: bm7 on October 13, 2024, 06:50:01 PM

Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2024, 07:15:43 AM

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I've never even heard of data caps actually being implemented on residential internet plans.  A couple ISPs from other parts of the country made the news for attempting it, but never actually implemented it thanks to intense push-back.  So yes, unlimited data on wired internet is "basic" where I live.  I don't even have the slightest clue how much data I use each month.

At least where I live, Mediacom has data limits on all but their most expensive plan.

I think people already forgot that Comcast did, starting around 2010-2011 and it was 250 GB on the plan I had. Looks like it's 1.2 TB now.

They also apparently don't enforce it where Fios is competition.

I checked my usage for my network for the month of September:

• Total data: 2,296 GB used
• Download data: 855.61 GB used
• Upload data: 1,440.86 GB used

Yes, it's a unlimited plan.

Quote from: SectorZ on October 14, 2024, 09:03:49 AM

Quote from: bm7 on October 13, 2024, 06:50:01 PM

Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2024, 07:15:43 AM

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I've never even heard of data caps actually being implemented on residential internet plans.  A couple ISPs from other parts of the country made the news for attempting it, but never actually implemented it thanks to intense push-back.  So yes, unlimited data on wired internet is "basic" where I live.  I don't even have the slightest clue how much data I use each month.

At least where I live, Mediacom has data limits on all but their most expensive plan.

I think people already forgot that Comcast did, starting around 2010-2011 and it was 250 GB on the plan I had. Looks like it's 1.2 TB now.

They also apparently don't enforce it where Fios is competition.

I thought they were forced to abandon that?

I remember Charter trying as well.

Incidentally, one reason why I have Verizon FiOS is because, when I moved here, there were rumors Comcast might buy Time Warner, and I didn't want anything to do with them.  Time Warner was since bought by Charter and turned into Spectrum.

Quote from: ZLoth on October 14, 2024, 11:53:58 AMI checked my usage for my network for the month of September:

• Total data: 2,296 GB used
• Download data: 855.61 GB used
• Upload data: 1,440.86 GB used

Yes, it's a unlimited plan.

Just curious, why is your upload quantity nearly twice your download? Big torrent seeder? :)

Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2024, 04:16:43 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on October 14, 2024, 11:53:58 AMI checked my usage for my network for the month of September:

• Total data: 2,296 GB used
• Download data: 855.61 GB used
• Upload data: 1,440.86 GB used

Yes, it's a unlimited plan.

Just curious, why is your upload quantity nearly twice your download? Big torrent seeder? :)

Besides working from home, I have set up a NAS server that serves several purposes. The primary reason is to store backups from two computers which have a backup job running at around midnight which, in turn gets backed up to a offsite cloud provider along with backups of several shared directories. That's the major chunk of that difference., Another minor part is streaming media (mostly music and audiobooks) from that server when I'm out and about.

Quote from: ZLoth on October 14, 2024, 06:43:53 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2024, 04:16:43 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on October 14, 2024, 11:53:58 AMI checked my usage for my network for the month of September:

• Total data: 2,296 GB used
• Download data: 855.61 GB used
• Upload data: 1,440.86 GB used

Yes, it's a unlimited plan.

Just curious, why is your upload quantity nearly twice your download? Big torrent seeder? :)

Besides working from home, I have set up a NAS server that serves several purposes. The primary reason is to store backups from two computers which have a backup job running at around midnight which, in turn gets backed up to a offsite cloud provider along with backups of several shared directories. That's the major chunk of that difference., Another minor part is streaming media (mostly music and audiobooks) from that server when I'm out and about.

Tell me to piss off if I'm being too personal, but why the need for nightly backups? I manage very large companies' databases and we only do backups once daily. These are 60 TB databases.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on October 14, 2024, 07:24:35 PM

Quote from: ZLoth on October 14, 2024, 06:43:53 PMBesides working from home, I have set up a NAS server that serves several purposes. The primary reason is to store backups from two computers which have a backup job running at around midnight which, in turn gets backed up to a offsite cloud provider along with backups of several shared directories. That's the major chunk of that difference., Another minor part is streaming media (mostly music and audiobooks) from that server when I'm out and about.

Tell me to piss off if I'm being too personal, but why the need for nightly backups? I manage very large companies' databases and we only do backups once daily. These are 60 TB databases.

Because I can. :) Also, I don't want to spend a excessive amount of time restoring my computer.

My backup scheme, as currently set, is that I do a nightly full backup followed by ten smaller incremental every night at 11:45 PM. I also do a regular backup of my work (scratch) drive (which includes my virtual machine drive), but those don't get a secondary backup. There is also plenty of items (including my media collection) where just backing them up to a external drive will do just fine. The cost of the offsite storage at Backblaze is less than $5 per month., although there is a cost of restoring the data from the online backups which would be cheaper than recreating the data.

Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2024, 10:10:26 AM

Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2024, 07:15:43 AM

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I've never even heard of data caps actually being implemented on residential internet plans.  A couple ISPs from other parts of the country made the news for attempting it, but never actually implemented it thanks to intense push-back.  So yes, unlimited data on wired internet is "basic" where I live.  I don't even have the slightest clue how much data I use each month.

I think he was trying to refer to speed rather than data.

No, I really was referring to data.  We're not cut off entirely when we reach our monthly quota, but additional bandwidth beyond costs extra.

Quote from: froggie on October 20, 2024, 04:34:32 PM

Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2024, 10:10:26 AM

Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2024, 07:15:43 AM

Quote from: froggie on October 12, 2024, 11:31:10 PM^ So what you're saying is you get 500+GB/mo as "basic"...

I've never even heard of data caps actually being implemented on residential internet plans.  A couple ISPs from other parts of the country made the news for attempting it, but never actually implemented it thanks to intense push-back.  So yes, unlimited data on wired internet is "basic" where I live.  I don't even have the slightest clue how much data I use each month.

I think he was trying to refer to speed rather than data.

No, I really was referring to data.  We're not cut off entirely when we reach our monthly quota, but additional bandwidth beyond costs extra.

O.o