Irish Exit
Verified User
Those don't work well in my immediate area due to being in a valley between a highway along one ridge and a train track on the other ridge interfering with otherwise weak signals
Television On The Web
- Thread starter leaningright
- Start date
Those don't work well in my immediate area due to being in a valley between a highway along one ridge and a train track on the other ridge interfering with otherwise weak signals
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Move.
Why would you bother?
evince
Truthmatters
maybe he doesn't live alone
I can get one local ABC station (3 channels) right now with my HD antenna. I am assured that if I elevate the antenna another 10 ft or so I’ll be able to get a CBS station, so that’s part of the plan. I will probably go with DirectTV which will cut my bill by more than 2/3. When I can’t watch something I want to (a sporting event most likely) I’ll remind myself that there was a day when all I could get from here was 2 channels and check the internet for updates.
Irish Exit
Verified User
Move.
I am guessing that would be more expensive than cable.
You still need internet access, which you likely get from Comcast. Guess what they'll do if you try to cut their cable?
https://arstechnica.com/information...st-to-internet-users-who-dont-buy-tv-service/
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
The News Hour, Nova and Front Line mainly. The News Hour is the most informative daily News Program produced in the US.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well no surprise there. This is one of the first predictions of what would happen if Net Nuetrality was not enforced.
Five minutes with drudge is all you need, and no ads...
Bullshit, Ohioan. That sleazy tactic by cable & broadband providers predates Obama's so-called 'Net Neutrality' rule and was unaffected by it.
03/26/2015
According to the FCC, the new net neutrality rules adopted last month will not regulate retail broadband rates.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/cable-companies-cutting-cord_n_6940414.html
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Cable TV was largely a waste. Living near Columbus my little HD antenna picks up well over 30 stations. Including all four Columbus major network affiliates and PBS. So I have a huge advantage over you. If I subscribe to Hulu and Netflix the only thing I’m missing out on is ESPN and Cable News. ESPN is a small loss cause if the game I want to watch is on ESPN I can catch it At BDubs or Yoggi’s and I consider cable news to be worthless and no loss at all.
Before I cut the cord I was watching very little TV anyway. Mainly sports and Movies. I watch most media these days with my IPAD or IPHONE.
Obama's ill-named "Net neutrality" rule was in effect. Mott the Stoople rekt
May 13th, 2016
We've noted time and time again how broadband usage caps on fixed-line networks are arbitrary, unnecessary, and harm innovation. They're also a useful weapon against streaming video competitors, and the natural evolution of TV competition. Caps can be used to either punish users who try and cut the cord with higher prices, but they also allow ISPs to exempt their own streaming services from said caps (something currently being done by both Verizon and Comcast), thereby giving these services a distinct and unfair advantage in the market.
But broadband ISPs are now coming up with a new way of attacking cord cutters: forcing them to subscribe to television if they want to avoid usage caps.
Back in January, AT&T announced that the company would be happy to remove usage caps on its wireless network, but only if you subscribe to DirecTV or U-verse TV service. Then last month, AT&T carried this idea over to its fixed-line broadband network, announcing that it would be imposing new usage caps on its broadband users starting May 23. While AT&T says it will generously allow users to pay $30 more per month to avoid usage caps entirely, it also announced that users who subscribe to its TV services will be able to avoid usage caps entirely.
This month, an Oregon company by the name of Bend Broadband followed suit, informing its users that it would be happy to remove its usage caps (ranging from 150 GB to 500 GB), but only if users subscribe to television service. Bend offers up a misleading explanation for why caps are necessary in the first place in a company FAQ:
"The continued migration of Netflix usage from mailed DVD to Internet streaming/download, as well as other data intensive uses of the Internet, are impacting all providers of high-speed Internet service. While we certainly acknowledge and appreciate that content rich services like Netflix make our high-speed offering more valuable to the end user, the volume of data associated with this content drives significant incremental investment in the network and the need to purchase more bandwidth in order to maintain the user experience and this must be funded."
Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades. As one cable CEO recently noted, most of the heavy investment is over, and the name of the game now is milking these uncompetitive markets for all they're worth until either broadband competition magically sprouts from the ether, or regulators wake up from a deep slumber and shut down the price gouging party.
Usage caps on fixed-line networks are nothing more than rate hikes on uncompetitive markets, and anybody claiming otherwise either has been swindled by a good salesman, or is selling you something themselves.
There's absolutely nothing good about this trend.
ISPs are using a lack of competition in the broadband space to impose usage caps. They're then using caps to force subscribers to sign up for TV services they may or may not actually want. It's a mammoth, misleading and anti-competitive abuse of two markets simultaneously, all sold to consumers under the lie that ISPs need even more revenue to keep funding unprecedented investment and innovation. In reality, the entire push may just be one of the largest cons ever perpetrated on consumers in the modern communications era.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160512/05492234421/isps-are-now-forcing-cord-cutters-to-subscribe-to-tv-if-they-want-to-avoid-usage-caps.shtml
May 13th, 2016
We've noted time and time again how broadband usage caps on fixed-line networks are arbitrary, unnecessary, and harm innovation. They're also a useful weapon against streaming video competitors, and the natural evolution of TV competition. Caps can be used to either punish users who try and cut the cord with higher prices, but they also allow ISPs to exempt their own streaming services from said caps (something currently being done by both Verizon and Comcast), thereby giving these services a distinct and unfair advantage in the market.
But broadband ISPs are now coming up with a new way of attacking cord cutters: forcing them to subscribe to television if they want to avoid usage caps.
Back in January, AT&T announced that the company would be happy to remove usage caps on its wireless network, but only if you subscribe to DirecTV or U-verse TV service. Then last month, AT&T carried this idea over to its fixed-line broadband network, announcing that it would be imposing new usage caps on its broadband users starting May 23. While AT&T says it will generously allow users to pay $30 more per month to avoid usage caps entirely, it also announced that users who subscribe to its TV services will be able to avoid usage caps entirely.
This month, an Oregon company by the name of Bend Broadband followed suit, informing its users that it would be happy to remove its usage caps (ranging from 150 GB to 500 GB), but only if users subscribe to television service. Bend offers up a misleading explanation for why caps are necessary in the first place in a company FAQ:
"The continued migration of Netflix usage from mailed DVD to Internet streaming/download, as well as other data intensive uses of the Internet, are impacting all providers of high-speed Internet service. While we certainly acknowledge and appreciate that content rich services like Netflix make our high-speed offering more valuable to the end user, the volume of data associated with this content drives significant incremental investment in the network and the need to purchase more bandwidth in order to maintain the user experience and this must be funded."
Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades. As one cable CEO recently noted, most of the heavy investment is over, and the name of the game now is milking these uncompetitive markets for all they're worth until either broadband competition magically sprouts from the ether, or regulators wake up from a deep slumber and shut down the price gouging party.
Usage caps on fixed-line networks are nothing more than rate hikes on uncompetitive markets, and anybody claiming otherwise either has been swindled by a good salesman, or is selling you something themselves.
There's absolutely nothing good about this trend.
ISPs are using a lack of competition in the broadband space to impose usage caps. They're then using caps to force subscribers to sign up for TV services they may or may not actually want. It's a mammoth, misleading and anti-competitive abuse of two markets simultaneously, all sold to consumers under the lie that ISPs need even more revenue to keep funding unprecedented investment and innovation. In reality, the entire push may just be one of the largest cons ever perpetrated on consumers in the modern communications era.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160512/05492234421/isps-are-now-forcing-cord-cutters-to-subscribe-to-tv-if-they-want-to-avoid-usage-caps.shtml
A TV remote control is a lot less fuss. And you can use it while reclining on the couch. (Unless you don't have one of those either) Another thing I like about cable TV is that you can see what is going to be coming up on the channel list you decided to keep track of. It is hard to watch some program on your computer if you don't even know it exists.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
That's so weird, you'd think PBS of all things would've been at the forefront of this, since their business model is all about providing content at no cost.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Tbh 90% of my news is NYT and WaPo. I actually like WaPo better because the bias is clearer, NYT tends to be a lot more balanced.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Cable news is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to news content.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
LOL yeah I know it makes sense for most people. I live pretty bare bones in my apartment. I save, I don't spend.
When I'm feeling lazy, I sometimes move my bed under my desk and watch my monitor from there, it's a fairly large monitor so it functions decently as a television. It's a lot of trouble to convert between the two positions though.
Irish Exit
Verified User
These one-off PBS stations have a la carte programming combinations that are fairly unique. FOr instance, I live in an overlap between two different PBS systems so I have 6 or 7 PBS channels, one of which I watch most often. It is more like a travel/cooking channel that requires no attention because it'll show whatever again soon enough.