Ditching cable

[Tad Footeball]

So you either didn't read the thread or you are just going for the lulz. I cut the cord last summer and was able to watch every Miami game w/o any issues.

At least in my situation, I only have one 'cord' option as I live in a condo that does not allow satellite dishes and the only TV option is Comcast where I live so they really dont offer any great deals.

The only sporting event that I lost access to that I care about is Nationals' games as the Lerners refuse to offer a way to watch the games w/o cable for in market fans.

I really don't need to read a whole thread to ascertain that while you may have managed to watch about a dozen Canes games that it's a little more difficult to also get access to an entire season of college hoops let alone the 4 major sports and their playoffs.

This is why cordcutters are always so defensive about how much money they're saving. "But but but I can ball at Buffalo Wild Wings and watch the game for the price you're paying the cable company!"

Yeahhhh, lemme meet you at Duffy's on a Tuesday night at 10pm to watch the Heat play a regular season game against Portland.

All that said, if effing Comcast is your only option then you've made the right choice by just winging it. No joke, my wifi was off for the last 10+ hrs because we had 28mph winds in Lauderdale earlier today.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I am not saying an ISP has charged the consumer more for a certain site before - partially due to the regulations in place that literally make it against the law to do so.

The point is that the PEOPLE don't trust the ISPs not to do that. Thats why having the regulations in place are important ESPECIALLY since these ISPs have a monopoly RIGHT NOW. Its the same reason Oil and electricity and every utility is regulated.

How the **** can a plurality be a monopoly? And how exactly is government going to fix it by regulating ISPs like a utility? If you're unhappy with your current internet provider, lets say it's AT&T for example, you can get Comcast. You can get a Verizon or other cellular data plan. You can even get satellite internet.

If you're unhappy with your electric company, what option do you have? How about your water and sewer service? Can you just call up someone else and switch your sewer service? How about your garbage collection? Do you have any say in that?

All utilities are government mandated monopolies. You're in favor of regulation that you think will fix a problem that you admit doesn't exist and that there are already anti-trust laws that prevent all because you don't trust the service providers, but you do trust the government.

 

[holdnorth]

I use Sling TV you can also get ESPN with I‎t.

Does that include WatchESPN login?

 

[Loose Cannon]

Does that include WatchESPN login?

Yes. Sling orange comes with ESPN and a WatchESPN login. Sling Blue comes with Fox Sports and a Fox Sports GO login. You can get both packages for around 60 bucks. You can add a sports package that includes things like SEC network and BTN for 5 extra.

 

[g8rh8rMD]

How the **** can a plurality be a monopoly? And how exactly is government going to fix it by regulating ISPs like a utility? If you're unhappy with your current internet provider, lets say it's AT&T for example, you can get Comcast. You can get a Verizon or other cellular data plan. You can even get satellite internet.

If you're unhappy with your electric company, what option do you have? How about your water and sewer service? Can you just call up someone else and switch your sewer service? How about your garbage collection? Do you have any say in that?

All utilities are government mandated monopolies. You're in favor of regulation that you think will fix a problem that you admit doesn't exist and that there are already anti-trust laws that prevent all because you don't trust the service providers, but you do trust the government.

View attachment 59353

Had to give this the checkmark, but wish I could do the laughy face too.

BTW, most of the country is deregulated for electricity generation. While you can typically only receive your electricity transmission from the government mandated monopoly serving your area, you typically have the option to select your supplier. Think of the transmitter as the wires and the supplier as the power plant. The savings can be and are significant by shopping out your rate to a private supplier every so often.

Unfortunately, here in Jacksonville, our energy authority is not deregulated and we are stuck with only one option. But take MD, where I just moved from, for example. There, the transmitter, the company that owned and maintained the power lines and transformers and the electric meter, etc, was BGE (Baltimore Gas & Electric). The rate they could bill for transmitting the electricity was about $0.05/kWh, and that rate was set by the utility commission for MD. Then, I could either buy power from them, let's just say for another $0.10/kWh, which rate would vary from time to time and was, I believe, also set by the commission. But, I also had the option to go out to the free and open market and buy power from any number of suppliers or resellers. I'd estimate the options at easily 20+ at any given time. Typically, if the utility was at $0.10/kWh, I could buy my generation for around say $0.06/kWh. I could lock in my rate for years if I wanted, or I could select a floating rate, or I could lock in for 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 month terms, or pretty much name your term. There are plans that include a fee if you want out early, and there are plans with absolutely no commitment on the consumer side, even though the supplier is obligated to sell you power at a set rate for a specified term.

Choices are good, and calling services "utilities" and regulating them down to one size fits all solutions limit choices.

Long story short, I said I was not going to comment on this topic in this thread any further so as not to contribute to derailing it, but if you are in a deregulated area for electricity, and you are not on a supply contract independent of your local regulated utility, you are almost certainly throwing money away.

EDIT: My bad, I thought deregulation of electricity markets was more ubiquitous than it actually is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_provider_switching

That said, my experience in MD shows the power of deregulation and fostering competition and consumer choice. Removing barriers to entry and competition should be the model to follow, not adding more restrictions to competition.

 

[cryptocane]

i love people saying they cut the chord but they use their parents login info for everything and then tell u how much money they are saving. why don t u try not using someonelses login and do it on your own and lets see how much fun it is.

u chord cutters are in the same boat as the medium rare steak eaters who complain about me eating my steak medium well--bunch of homos

 

[MotoSniper]

Go forth boldly, my friend, you are the future.

The entire country is not ready for this because of bandwidth issues, but as bandwidth increases, this option becomes more viable.

I long for the day where I have strictly a la carte selection, but until I have fiber optic straight into the house, and fiber optic in the house, it’s not viable for me with all the devices I have.

Satellite is not a bad alternative...dish companies are more flexible with being able to select and customize channels.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Satellite is not a bad alternative...dish companies are more flexible with being able to select and customize channels.

You are correct, my friend.

It’s wonderful to have options.

Even with cord cutting, satellites aren’t going away. Ever. Because at some point in the process, the signal is getting transmitted via a satellite anyway. You either get directly from a satellite or through someone else. But at some point in the process, somebody is getting a satellite transmission.

 

[segundo82]

I've herd good things about PS VUE, and I may give it a go at some point. I'm satisfied currently, but the real test won't come until September. YouTube TV is not yet available in my market, but a friend who has had it says the interface is trash compared to DTVN and PSV.

I had PS Vue and it is a really great service. It lets you have up to 5 devices going which is nice. Only reason I don't go with them is because its cheaper with Directvnow if you have ATT wireless.

 

[deleted18380]

Name one ISP that has ever charged extra to visit certain websites.

You can't. It has never happened. You want ISP's to not prioritize traffic for certain websites? Sounds to me like you're in favor of preventing ISP's from selling a 1gb service to YouTube and a 2gb service to Netflix. Why? Why shouldn't different consumers be able to pay different rates to support their different needs. You're in favor of massive new government regulation to solve a problem that does not exist. And the sad part is that government regulation is the reason you already have limited choices. Only one cable provider in your neighborhood? That's because your county or district collects a franchise licensing fee from that provider that allows them to operate and keeps competition out.

You say you want more competition to break up monopolies, but you're actually advocating for everyone to have a one-size-fits-all service regardless of their personal desire, business need, or ability to pay.

In short, what you want is for everyone to have one of these.

View attachment 59348

I mean, it's not fair that some people get to buy an iPhone while others can't afford one. Or should the government regulate that Telco's only be allowed to provide iPhones since it's a utility like basic sanitation?

An ISP has never charged a consumer more to view certain websites, however everyone seems to forget that for a handful of months in 2010-2011 or so (this is off the top of my head) Comcast was indeed throttling certain websites and services to the detriment of the consumer because certain content creators/providers/etc weren't paying Comcast unique fees they were demanding in order to allow their service to simply function from a consumer-facing perspective.

Netflix was being MASSIVELY throttled in certain markets to such an extent that it was almost unwatchable. I remember this because I live in one of those markets and for almost a 6 month period in Nashville, you couldn't really watch Netflix due to Comcast's intentional throttling. Netflix finally caved and paid Comcast in order to allow their packets to stream correctly again.

There are pros and cons to both, but to anyone saying that XYZ has never been limited by an ISP is absolutely incorrect. ISPs were limiting traffic for absolutely no reason other than financial gain and protection of their antiquated assets for quite a while when streaming services were becoming more prevalent. In Comcast's case with Netflix, it was heavily speculated that it was because Netflix was starting to eat into Comcast's subscriber base and they were trying to combat cord cutting.

Also, stating that government regulation is the cause of the telephone's lack of change is patently absurd and is in complete denial of other factors that played heavily into that minimal change. Sure, regulation could have played a part in it, but the evolution of telecom also occurred hand-in-hand with the exponential evolution of modern internet and cellular technology. Cellular technology was already rapidly advancing even under heavy government regulation. Comparing current day telecom advancements to the lack of advancement of the telephone and blaming it on the same ideas behind Net Neutrality is in complete denial of the extreme differences in general technological advancement during the era of the telephone and the current era of the internet and flow of information.

All that to say, Net Neutrality is very important and striking it down does indeed only help ISPs. It's a massive detriment to the consumer. The idea that innovation would stop under Net Neutrality is just as much a scare tactic as what you accused Net Neutrality proponents of purveying. Regulation ended in 1996 and we still have some of the worst internet and telecom of any developed country. Removing that regulation did absolutely nothing to advance anything. Creating some kind of correlation between telecom advances and the end of regulation is coincidental at best.

Classifying the internet as a utility wouldn't require "massive new government regulation." It was already in place and was working quite well. There's a healthy balance somewhere, but giving companies an unregulated say over what can and can't pass through lines has, and will again, be used at the detriment of the consumer.

Edit: I do agree with a lot of what you have to say, BTW. I think this topic has become far too polarized for people to realize that there's a healthy in-between somewhere. Consumers don't trust ISPs because they haven't proven trustworthy, and they also don't trust the government. Full-on regulation isn't the answer, but neither is full on deregulation because private enterprise proves time and time again that it can't behave itself. So...yeah. I don't really know what the answer is. But neither side has it completely correct.

 

[Loose Cannon]

So Comcast throttled Netflix for not paying their bill? We do it all the time. I don't know where you get off saying that we--as an ISP--should have no say what can and can't pass through the lines that we built and maintain. Let me explain how it works with larger connections like you might find for a major company like Netflix. I'm just throwing some numbers out there as an example, but suppose Netflix pays for a 10Gb/s up link. Depending on their contract with us and how much they want to pay, we may cap them at 10Gb/s, or we may, for an additional fee, give them the ability to burst over their contracted rate so long as the network can sustain it. Lets say demand from Netflix peaks from 7pm to 9pm and they regularly burst 15-20Gb/s during their peak times. That's fine as long as the network can support it, but they are still only guaranteed 10Gb/s. As demand grows and the network becomes more congested, less and less of that peak traffic to and from Netflix can be supported. Can you guess what happens to a data packet that the network cannot support? It gets discarded. You know what happens when a packet gets discarded? Two more packets are created--one telling Netflix to resend the discarded packet and the re-transmitted packet. This causes a domino effect and we would recommend to Netflix that they would need to upgrade their connection.

Shouldn't have a say in what goes through OUR lines. What a laugh. And I tie the ISP and Telco industries together because I don't know if you know this, but almost all internet traffic is transmitted along telco lines. One of the first fiber networks on the planet was put in by SPRINT. Southern Pacific Railroad and Internal Network Telecommunications. That little company began by placing telegraph lines along the Southern Pacific Railroad in the 1800's Good luck telling them that they shouldn't technically be allowed to own the infrastructure they've spent countless billions of dollars and over a hundred years building. The government should not be allowed to FORCE anyone to pass anyone else's traffic unless agreed upon access rates have been paid.

 

[datcaneguy]

Cut cable last December. Best decision yet. Sling Tv for $25 and Reddit sports streams get me through. Only activate Sling for CFB season, March Madness, and NBA playoffs.

 

[HTXCane]

I have tried Sling, Directv Now, and Youtube TV. Out of those, I like Youtube the best.

I hated Sling's interface which made it hard to find anything. I had major issues with Directv Now buffering constantly. It was unwatchable for me. Plus they do not have a DVR and only had 2 of the 4 local channels. Youtube TV has had zero issue with quality so far. They also have all local channels in my market and an unlimited DVR. Its also tailored to sports so you get pretty much every sports channel.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I have tried Sling, Directv Now, and Youtube TV. Out of those, I like Youtube the best.

I hated Sling's interface which made it hard to find anything. I had major issues with Directv Now buffering constantly. It was unwatchable for me. Plus they do not have a DVR and only had 2 of the 4 local channels. Youtube TV has had zero issue with quality so far. They also have all local channels in my market and an unlimited DVR. Its also tailored to sports so you get pretty much every sports channel.

Funny thing about the Sling interface, it was garbage on the Roku box, but great on my LG Smart TV.

 

[2bja]

PlayStation Vue’s basic package for 40 gets ESPN, espn2, fox sports 1 and fox sports 2. Next package up 45 gets more sports like ESPN news and espnu.

 

[Pixelated bukake]

I'm open to cutting the cord, but typically think any non-cable solution robust enough to give me what I actually want would end up costing me just as much as I'm paying now for cable. for example, what you listed for what you pay is what I already pay for cable/internet now, and I can keep DVR as long as I want. Haven't seen a solution that doesn't involve me sacrificing something I'd rather not sacrifice.

That's a valid concern. For how I prefer to view content, I am very happy with the flexibility. But if you're main concern is value/savings, there is not a huge advantage to the route I have chosen.

 

[Calinative]

How the **** can a plurality be a monopoly? And how exactly is government going to fix it by regulating ISPs like a utility? If you're unhappy with your current internet provider, lets say it's AT&T for example, you can get Comcast. You can get a Verizon or other cellular data plan. You can even get satellite internet.

If you're unhappy with your electric company, what option do you have? How about your water and sewer service? Can you just call up someone else and switch your sewer service? How about your garbage collection? Do you have any say in that?

All utilities are government mandated monopolies. You're in favor of regulation that you think will fix a problem that you admit doesn't exist and that there are already anti-trust laws that prevent all because you don't trust the service providers, but you do trust the government.

Theres really no point in further discussing since I find like 90% of what you're saying to be wrong.
This started with you talking about how telephones weren't innovated from the 30's to the 90's, which I already proved to be complete and utter bs since mobile phones were invented in the 70's and the internet was invented in the early 90s.
Then we talked about how the 1996 act actually didn't do ANYTHING positive, since AT&T was already broken up a decade earlier. The 1996 act was SUPPOSED to increase competition and decrease regulation. All it ended up doing was deregulating then DECREASE competition because all the big companies just merged. We literally went from 50 companies controlling 90% of the media pre-1996 act to 6 companies due to that deregulation.

Secondly don't act like there are not regional monopolies. Remember when you wrote:

The consumer does. You don't like how Comcast is treating you? Try Cox or MediaCom or any number of other options. Don't have any other options? Complain to your local government. They control franchising an licensing.

Thats a regional monopoly - when some people don't have any other option but to go with that ISP that paid the government for the licensing as you say. How is that any different than your gas/electricity provider? They entered an agreement with the local/state government, and are the only ones allowed to operate there. Any monopoly or even oligopoly needs to be regulated.

This is why my entire point all along has been if you want to repeal Net Neutrality we need something to drastically increase lasting competition. But ISPs don't want that do they? I assume thats why you didn't respond to my 3 options:
Option A) Keep Net Neutrality regulations to protect the public, but begin the process of promoting competition so that IN THE FUTURE, the internet can be deregulated.
Option B) Keep Net Neutrality.
Option C) Repeal Net Neutrality and drastically increase competition in the local markets immediately, and be more successfully than the 1996 Act.
Any of those 3 options could work. The fact of the matter is you and the ISPs just want complete control of the market, and to be completely deregulated so they can hike the ******* prices. If that wasn't their plan then why the **** would they care? If their plan wasn't to charge the consumer extra to watch streaming services, then why would they care about this?

 

[HTXCane]

Cordcutting- a fun idea in theory.....until your boys come over.

"Put on the game, dude."

"Uhhh, is it on Netflix, guyzz?"

The simplest solution (for now) is just threaten to quit DirecTV. They'll bend over backwards to keep you.

100% not true. Cutting the cord now just means moving your channels from cable to the internet. The streaming devices available allow your tv to work the same. All you are doing is getting rid of the 400 BS channels you are paying for but don’t watch.

I watched every Cane game last year and pay only $35/mth.

 

[HTXCane]

I'm open to cutting the cord, but typically think any non-cable solution robust enough to give me what I actually want would end up costing me just as much as I'm paying now for cable. for example, what you listed for what you pay is what I already pay for cable/internet now, and I can keep DVR as long as I want. Haven't seen a solution that doesn't involve me sacrificing something I'd rather not sacrifice.

What do you feel like you would be sacrificing? I haven’t lost anything and went from $190 to $35 per month.

 

[Tad Footeball]

100% not true. Cutting the cord now just means moving your channels from cable to the internet. The streaming devices available allow your tv to work the same. All you are doing is getting rid of the 400 BS channels you are paying for but don’t watch.

I watched every Cane game last year and pay only $35/mth.

Again, that's a dozen games.

How did you watch the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, NCAA Hoops and The Masters? And pay for a Netflix subscription? And separate wifi service (as that's usually severely discounted when bundled with cable or satellite)?

Hey, if you guys are able to do it cheaply and with less aggravation than me just paying DirectTV every month then more power to you. All I know, is that everytime I end up a cordcutters house and want to watch a sporting event unannounced that it turns into them suggesting we just hit up the closest Ale House instead.

Not to get too big picture here, but we'll probably be having a similar debate regarding vehicle ownership within a decade max. "Hey old man, stop wasting money on that personal use car! Autonomous rideshare vehicles are sooooo much cheaper over the course of a year!"