# Looks like Cable is going to change or die.



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Streaming Is Now Bigger Than Cable TV (msn.com)

"It's likely streaming will fall back behind cable TV this fall as sports get back into full swing. But cord-cutting will eventually cement the trend of streaming taking over as the predominant form of television entertainment. In fact, cord-cutting is accelerating.
Over the past 12 months, approximately 5.43 million American households cut the cord, according to Leichtman Research. That compares to 4.55 million in the preceding 12 months."


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

There’s a lot of numbers in that story but nowhere does it state that streamers overtook cable by .4%.

Here’s a more detailed look.








Streaming Overtakes Cable in July, Leads Platform Rankings for the First Time


Buoyed by 'Stranger Things' and other big titles, streamers set a fifth straight high in Nielsen's monthly usage snapshot.




www.hollywoodreporter.com


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> "It's likely streaming will fall back behind cable TV this fall as sports get back into full swing.


Important to note that extent to which live sports are shifting to streaming. Some sports events are now exclusively on streaming -- mostly soccer, plus select national MLB games (Apple TV+ and Peacock) -- although NFL Thursday Night Football is now exclusive on a national basis to Prime Video.

The bigger shift, though, is the extent to which live sports are being shared between cable TV and streaming. All NFL games on CBS, NBC and ESPN are available on their streaming counterparts. In fact, I think all sports airing on NBC and USA are on Peacock, and all sports airing on CBS are on Paramount+. The next big domino to fall are the RSNs, virtually all of which, one way or another, are going to make their content available via standalone streaming services, in addition to cable TV, in the next year or two.

The last major domino to fall will be ESPN itself. At some point -- my guess is 2024 or 2025 -- Disney will make the entirety of the ESPN cable networks' live sports content (or, at least, all of it for which they have direct-to-consumer streaming rights) available via one or more standalone streaming apps. Because at that point, cable TV penetration will be down to only about half of all US households and it will become more profitable for Disney to offer all of ESPN both ways than keeping it exclusive to the dying cable bundle.

And once we've crossed that point, there really won't be anything available via cable TV (including the 24/7 live streams of the big 3 cable news/politics networks) that's not also available via the various streaming services. However, those streaming services will continue to offer some exclusive content (e.g. Peacock Originals) that don't air on any of their sibling broadcast/cable networks. And, of course, the content offered on the digital-native services -- Netflix, Prime Video, and Apple TV+ -- will never show up on cable TV (except, perhaps, as re-runs a few years later). So streaming will offer the entirety of available video content while cable TV will offer only a fraction of it. This is when the bottom falls out from under what's left of cable TV.


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> And once we've crossed that point, there really won't be anything available via cable TV (including the 24/7 live streams of the big 3 cable news/politics networks) that's not also available via the various streaming services. However, those streaming services will continue to offer some exclusive content (e.g. Peacock Originals) that don't air on any of their sibling broadcast/cable networks. And, of course, the content offered on the digital-native services -- Netflix, Prime Video, and Apple TV+ -- will never show up on cable TV (except, perhaps, as re-runs a few years later). So streaming will offer the entirety of available video content while cable TV will offer only a fraction of it. This is when the bottom falls out from under what's left of cable TV.


Very true…. I think NBC is testing the waters…. Starting September 12th. Days of our Lives is moving over exclusively to Peacock… so if you’re looking to continue to watch this show then you must subscribe to Peacock! I think that this may start a trend… we’ll see


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

MrDell said:


> Very true…. I think NBC is testing the waters…. Starting September 12th. Days of our Lives is moving over exclusively to Peacock… so if you’re looking to continue to watch this show then you must subscribe to Peacock! I think that this may start a trend… we’ll see


Yes, and likewise this fall season, Dancing with the Stars shifts from ABC to Disney+, where it will stream live.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

MrDell said:


> Very true…. I think NBC is testing the waters…. Starting September 12th. Days of our Lives is moving over exclusively to Peacock… so if you’re looking to continue to watch this show then you must subscribe to Peacock! I think that this may start a trend… we’ll see


Testing the waters? Or desperate?



https://www.avclub.com/peacock-added-no-new-paid-subscribers-q2-2022-1849345829


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

NashGuy said:


> And, of course, the content offered on the digital-native services -- Netflix, Prime Video, and Apple TV+ -- will never show up on cable TV (except, perhaps, as re-runs a few years later). So streaming will offer the entirety of available video content while cable TV will offer only a fraction of it. This is when the bottom falls out from under what's left of cable TV.


While I don’t disagree that for the foreseeable future streaming will offer more content than cable, the days of streaming offering “the entirety” is already over.

Netflix regularly pulls content - often because the rights-holder wants to put it on their own service (The Office on Peacock, for example).

And with HBO Max recently we’ve seen you cannot take for granted that streaming services won’t pull a show from airing anywhere just to save money on royalties.

And AppleTV has no library content, just Apple exclusives, so they’re a different beast all together. They’re not playing a volume game like Prime and Netflix.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

cwoody222 said:


> Testing the waters? Or desperate?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avclub.com/peacock-added-no-new-paid-subscribers-q2-2022-1849345829


Of all the services Peacock is the least interesting. Most network broadcast shows do not interest me. I have been watching a lot of FX on Hulu lately followed by Netflix, Prime, HBO, and Apple TV+


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> Important to note that extent to which live sports are shifting to streaming. Some sports events are now exclusively on streaming -- mostly soccer, plus select national MLB games (Apple TV+ and Peacock


I like to watch White Sox games (with a LOT of fast forwarding, baseball can get sloooooooow nowadays, especially with the replay/reviews). I have noticed a few games this year did not record for me. Found out because they were "switched" to Apple TV. And did not air on cable or OTA at all. Very irritating, I'm certainly not going to subscribe to Apple TV to get a handful of WS games each year, and I assume none of the other WS games will be on Apple, those were still on cable. I just hope the number of switched games does not increase.................. Subscribe to cable (prices through the roof), and streaming services too, could get up to $300+ a month. For TV?


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

cwoody222 said:


> Testing the waters? Or desperate?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avclub.com/peacock-added-no-new-paid-subscribers-q2-2022-1849345829


Oh wow… no new subscriptions! Maybe this is why they have the yearly subscription special for $19.99 all month! Maybe it’s me, but I find Their content isn’t all that compelling … a few decent shows … although you can stream all your NBC favorites the next day. Interesting to see how it all plays out!


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, streaming could go one of two ways. It could become more fragmented - offering the promises of "a la carte" cable, but now needing to subscribe to a million services to get the programming you want.

Or there could be massive consolidation where it becomes the new cable and you're paying one subscription, but it's now back to $200/month and getting every service whether you want it or not (see the whole WB/Discovery+/HBO mergers).

It's not entirely obvious which way things will go - likely smaller services will consolidate first in order to compete with the bigger services, and likely those will get acquired in order to pick up more niche content.

And since ads are coming well, I'm sure services will use that to keep subscribers - soon the ad-free subscription tiers will go away (with announcements encouraging people to subscribe before it does) and be replaced with tiers that have ads. As long as you stay subscribed, you get ad-free, but the moment you cancel, you can only subscribe with ads the next time.

Streaming will become "the new cable", minus the cable.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Worf said:


> Well, streaming could go one of two ways. It could become more fragmented - offering the promises of "a la carte" cable, but now needing to subscribe to a million services to get the programming you want.
> 
> Or there could be massive consolidation where it becomes the new cable and you're paying one subscription, but it's now back to $200/month and getting every service whether you want it or not (see the whole WB/Discovery+/HBO mergers).
> 
> ...


It's pretty clear it's becoming 1 on 1 with media conglomerates. The media biggies always had to sell their channels to the cable guys. Now you essentially subscribe to Disney/Hulu/ABC, Peacock/NBC, Paramount/CBS/Showtime, HBO/CNN/Discovery, and the outliers: Prime, Apple TV, Netflix, Britbox, AcornTV.

I could see Britbox assimilated into Hulu, and Acorn into Peacock. Netflix is the big question?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

cwoody222 said:


> While I don’t disagree that for the foreseeable future streaming will offer more content than cable, the days of streaming offering “the entirety” is already over.
> 
> Netflix regularly pulls content - often because the rights-holder wants to put it on their own service (The Office on Peacock, for example).
> 
> ...


When I said streaming would offer "the entirety," I meant 100% of the content currently available via all types of "TV service," free and subscription, while linear channel TV (broadcast + cable nets) would offer only a subset of that. I didn't mean that every piece of video entertainment ever produced throughout history would be available on streaming. I guess there will always be relatively unpopular content still under copyright which cannot profitably be included on a streaming service. For that stuff, you'll need to find it either on disc or TVOD (transactional video on-demand, either rental or purchase). Or illegal copies floating around online.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

MrDell said:


> Oh wow… no new subscriptions! Maybe this is why they have the yearly subscription special for $19.99 all month! Maybe it’s me, but I find Their content isn’t all that compelling … a few decent shows … although you can stream all your NBC favorites the next day. Interesting to see how it all plays out!


I'm enjoying the Peacock Original series The Resort right now. And also liked true crime mini-series Dr. Death and comedies Killing It and Girls 5 Eva. Plus the NBC workplace sitcom American Auto is good. (The picture quality is way better than on NBC.) And of course SNL (which streams live on Peacock). Nice that Peacock is _finally_ starting to offer at least a few titles in 4K or 4K HDR.

I would agree that, per my tastes, Peacock has gotten off to a slow start. But it's picking up. It's been nice to have it always there as a freebie via Comcast. Unfortunately, that perk will be going away at some point, although they haven't said exactly when. If it happens soon, I'd just get the one-year special for $19.99.


----------



## humbb (Jan 27, 2014)

tommage1 said:


> I'm certainly not going to subscribe to Apple TV to get a handful of WS games each year, and I assume none of the other WS games will be on Apple, those were still on cable.


Right now, baseball on ATV+ is only on Friday nights (2 games) and is exclusive. It is also free (currently, for at least the remainder of this season) as long as you have an Apple ID. WS games are exclusively on Fox or FS1 in the US and will be for a while. Other playoff games will mostly be on cable channels (ESPN,TBS,FS1,???) or Fox.



Worf said:


> Streaming will become "the new cable", minus the cable.


... and minus the TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tommage1 said:


> I like to watch White Sox games (with a LOT of fast forwarding, baseball can get sloooooooow nowadays, especially with the replay/reviews). I have noticed a few games this year did not record for me. Found out because they were "switched" to Apple TV. And did not air on cable or OTA at all. Very irritating, I'm certainly not going to subscribe to Apple TV to get a handful of WS games each year, and I assume none of the other WS games will be on Apple, those were still on cable. I just hope the number of switched games does not increase.................. Subscribe to cable (prices through the roof), and streaming services too, could get up to $300+ a month. For TV?


Yeah, MLB is doing a pretty good job of annoying their biggest fans by spreading their games out over so many different services. Of course, for the great majority of your local team's regular season games, you need the RSN that carries them (e.g. Bally Sports Southeast for the Atlanta Braves). But then there's a chunk of regular season games that are shown nationally and locked up in exclusive deals with Peacock/NBC, Apple TV+, ESPN/+, Fox, etc. But the good news for MLB fans is that in '23 or '24, pretty much all those RSNs will become available as standalone streaming services, no cable bundle needed. In fact, that's already happened with six (I think) different MLB teams' RSNs this year.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

humbb said:


> Right now, baseball on ATV+ is only on Friday nights (2 games) and is exclusive. It is also free (currently, for at least the remainder of this season) as long as you have an Apple ID. WS games are exclusively on Fox or FS1 in the US and will be for a while. Other playoff games will mostly be on cable channels (ESPN,TBS,FS1,???) or Fox.


Actually if you are in Chicago area WS games are on Comcast Sports Net or whatever they call it now, NBC Sports Channel? Occasionally a game on Fox or ESPN. Get pretty much every game (good to get something for the $30-40 a month or so in regional sports fees and local channel fees, whether you watch them or not). The ones that were switched to Apple did not air on any cable channel in my area. Interesting you can get free with Apple ID, not sure how I'd do it, hookup a computer to my TV and login to some Apple app? Possibly the Stream 4K? Anyway not THAT big of a deal, for now handful of 162 games, just hoping they don't continue migrating games to Apple TV, Ilke just recording, watching at my leisure, and being able to fast forward a lot.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

tommage1 said:


> Interesting you can get free with Apple ID, not sure how I'd do it, hookup a computer to my TV and login to some Apple app? Possibly the Stream 4K?


Looks like I can use the Stream 4K. And is free, for now. I can watch past games so can FF I guess. There is a previous WSox game out there. Thanks for info, would never have thought of trying that and did not know it would be free. Better go out there and make sure info on Apple ID is anonymous, I have too much being tracked already.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i just scheduled my google fiber installation, so after 20 years, it's farewell to comcast/xfinity & tivo in 2 weeks.

considering i've been at the same base rate for 4 years, they actually quoted a decent price for my triple play, but it was still more expensive by about $10-$15 per month, only a 1-year contract instead of 2-years, and with the january price increase just around the corner, streaming seemed to offer the most of what i watch without the local broadcast/regional sports/espn upcharges. who knows, if the situation changes, i could come back.

i'm going to miss my tivos, but not the monthly comcast bill.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

NorthAlabama said:


> i'm going to miss my tivos, but not the monthly comcast bill.


Ha, yeah, I told myself it the minimal cable TV package (with cable channels, not just local) ever got to $70 I was done. Now with fees over $100, and not getting cheaper.


----------



## humbb (Jan 27, 2014)

tommage1 said:


> Actually if you are in Chicago area WS games are on Comcast Sports Net or whatever they call it now, NBC Sports Channel? Occasionally a game on Fox or ESPN. Get pretty much every game (good to get something for the $30-40 a month or so in regional sports fees and local channel fees, whether you watch them or not). The ones that were switched to Apple did not air on any cable channel in my area. Interesting you can get free with Apple ID, not sure how I'd do it, hookup a computer to my TV and login to some Apple app? Possibly the Stream 4K? Anyway not THAT big of a deal, for now handful of 162 games, just hoping they don't continue migrating games to Apple TV, Ilke just recording, watching at my leisure, and being able to fast forward a lot.


I'm sorry I misunderstood when you said "WS" meaning White Sox. I instinctively thought of the usual acronym for World Series which of course has only been on Fox and FS1 for a long time. And to be sure, Apple paid a lot of money to MLB for the Friday night doubleheader exclusives, so it's only a matter of time when an ATV+ subscription will be required to view those games. Glad you're able to get them now.


----------



## tommage1 (Nov 6, 2008)

humbb said:


> I'm sorry I misunderstood when you said "WS" meaning White Sox. I instinctively thought of the usual acronym for World Series which of course has only been on Fox and FS1 for a long time. And to be sure, Apple paid a lot of money to MLB for the Friday night doubleheader exclusives, so it's only a matter of time when an ATV+ subscription will be required to view those games. Glad you're able to get them now.


Yeah, I started off talking about the White Sox, spelled out, then abbreviated as I went on. And yep, normally would think WS means World Series when talking baseball. Is nice I can get those few games through Apple TV for free using the Stream 4K. I do very little streaming, DVR guy, so good to get some use from the 4K. Otherwise pretty much the Orville on my 99 cent black friday Hulu subscription and some movies I have on VUDU.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NorthAlabama said:


> i just scheduled my google fiber installation, so after 20 years, it's farewell to comcast/xfinity & tivo in 2 weeks.
> 
> considering i've been at the same base rate for 4 years, they actually quoted a decent price for my triple play, but it was still more expensive by about $10-$15 per month, only a 1-year contract instead of 2-years, and with the january price increase just around the corner, streaming seemed to offer the most of what i watch without the local broadcast/regional sports/espn upcharges. who knows, if the situation changes, i could come back.
> 
> i'm going to miss my tivos, but not the monthly comcast bill.


I've had negotiations with GF at several points in the past for installation on our condo property and would be curious to know the following:

How long has the service been available to your residence? What terms did you sign up for (service/installation/equipment)? Is GF still offering both 100Mbps and 1000Mbps speed tiers in your area?

TIA for any feedback.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> I'm enjoying the Peacock Original series The Resort right now. And also liked true crime mini-series Dr. Death and comedies Killing It and Girls 5 Eva. Plus the NBC workplace sitcom American Auto is good. (The picture quality is way better than on NBC.) And of course SNL (which streams live on Peacock). Nice that Peacock is _finally_ starting to offer at least a few titles in 4K or 4K HDR.


Peacock also offered a couple of interesting movie exclusives: The Outfit and The Northman. The latter is still on-line.

I also enjoy their exclusive "The Office: Superfan Episodes" that currently cover the first five seasons of that show.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

chiguy50 said:


> I've had negotiations with GF at several points in the past for installation on our condo property and would be curious to know the following:
> 
> How long has the service been available to your residence? What terms did you sign up for (service/installation/equipment)? Is GF still offering both 100Mbps and 1000Mbps speed tiers in your area?
> 
> TIA for any feedback.


it's been available 4 years for us (northwest city). huntsville utilities laid the fiber network beginning in 2014, then google fiber launched with a non-exclusive leasing agreement using the city's fiber network beginning in 2017. they initially launched on the north side, but rapidly deployed to the rest of town.

the current offer includes free installation, free wifi router/gateway, free mesh network with up to 3 pods (if needed), no data caps, and 1tb cloud storage. the plans currently offered are 1gig and 2gig, although they've grandfathered anyone currently subscribing to the 100/100 plan.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NorthAlabama said:


> it's been available 4 years for us (northwest city). huntsville utilities laid the fiber network beginning in 2014, then google fiber launched with a non-exclusive leasing agreement using the city's fiber network beginning in 2017. they initially launched on the north side, but rapidly deployed to the rest of town.
> 
> the current offer includes free installation, free wifi router/gateway, free mesh network with up to 3 pods (if needed), no data caps, and 1tb cloud storage. the plans currently offered are 1gig and 2gig, although they've grandfathered anyone currently subscribing to the 100/100 plan.


Thank you for that detailed info. Do you have the price schedule for the various plans?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Thank you for that detailed info. Do you have the price schedule for the various plans?


Looks like it's the same as here in Nashville: $70 for 1 Gig, $100 for 2 Gig.









Gigabit Internet Service in Huntsville, AL | Google Fiber


The high speed internet provider with more gigabit fiber optic internet service in Huntsville than ever before. No data caps. No contracts. Sign up today!




fiber.google.com


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NorthAlabama said:


> i just scheduled my google fiber installation, so after 20 years, it's farewell to comcast/xfinity & tivo in 2 weeks.
> 
> considering i've been at the same base rate for 4 years, they actually quoted a decent price for my triple play, but it was still more expensive by about $10-$15 per month, only a 1-year contract instead of 2-years, and with the january price increase just around the corner, streaming seemed to offer the most of what i watch without the local broadcast/regional sports/espn upcharges. who knows, if the situation changes, i could come back.
> 
> i'm going to miss my tivos, but not the monthly comcast bill.


Are you going to go with a streaming cable TV service (e.g. YouTube TV) or just gonna use DTC apps like Netflix, Paramount+, HBO Max, etc., maybe combined with OTA TV? Depending on which model TiVos you have, you could use them with free OTA TV. I did that when I first dumped cable/satellite TV years ago, with the TiVo Roamio OTA (which is what brought me to this forum in the first place).


----------



## jerryez (May 16, 2001)

Cable companies will be here after cable tv dies because we need it for internet at this time. Also, ABC has Disney+. CBS has Parmount+, and NBC has Peacock. So they might not need broadcasters much longer.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

There are franchise laws and rules that are going to play a part in this. The local network stations have rights to a lot of stuff that can/will be broadcasted


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Looks like it's the same as here in Nashville: $70 for 1 Gig, $100 for 2 Gig.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I know about the retail rates. I never pay retail and was curious to know what OP had arranged.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> Yeah, I know about the retail rates. I never pay retail and was curious to know what OP had arranged.


Google Fiber doesn't engage in the sort of used car salesman wheeling-and-dealing that cable companies like Comcast do. At least not for individual residential subs. They don't even run special promos. They just have their regular rates. Only exception to that I've seen in the past is when they announced they might be expanding into a new "fiberhood" and depending on the number of homes who pre-committed, those homes got a certain amount of discount off the regular rate.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

chiguy50 said:


> Thank you for that detailed info. Do you have the price schedule for the various plans?





NashGuy said:


> Looks like it's the same as here in Nashville: $70 for 1 Gig, $100 for 2 Gig.





chiguy50 said:


> Yeah, I know about the retail rates. I never pay retail and was curious to know what OP had arranged.


no, no better deal, though their pricing hasn't changed for 5 years, so there's that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jerryez said:


> Cable companies will be here after cable tv dies because we need it for internet at this time. Also, ABC has Disney+. CBS has Parmount+, and NBC has Peacock. So they might not need broadcasters much longer.


Yep. Already we're seeing how local broadcast stations and the national broadcast networks are separating from each other in the direct-to-consumer streaming era. For instance, my local NBC affiliate, WSMV 4, is owned by Gray, which has their own WSMV 4 app that streams their local newscasts both live and afterwards on-demand. But if I want to stream NBC network content, I go into NBCUniversal's Peacock app for that. Of course, it also streams content from some of their various cable nets too (e.g. USA, Bravo, MSNBC) plus recent Universal theatrical films.

Once virtually all Americans have affordable access to reliable broadband and are familiar with using streaming video apps, the big network owners (Disney, Paramount, NBCUniversal, Fox) will have no need to rely on their local broadcast station affiliates any more. I expect that day to arrive in the early 30s.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Former Disney CEO Bob Iger predicts the death of linear TV:









Bob Iger Predicts A Reckoning For Streaming Services, Linear TV Death, “Smaller” & “Scarred” Movie Industry


“I don’t think all streamers are created equal, “ Bob Iger bluntly said today at the 2022 Code Conference. “I don’t think they’ll all make it.” “There will be haves and have…




deadline.com


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> Are you going to go with a streaming cable TV service (e.g. YouTube TV) or just gonna use DTC apps like Netflix, Paramount+, HBO Max, etc., maybe combined with OTA TV? Depending on which model TiVos you have, you could use them with free OTA TV. I did that when I first dumped cable/satellite TV years ago, with the TiVo Roamio OTA (which is what brought me to this forum in the first place).


i'm debating on a cable streaming service, but i'm not signing up for one immediately. i have great ota signal, and have netflix, paramount+, showime, and peacock - my tivos do not support ota, but next day streaming is ok for me, i've been streaming for years.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NorthAlabama said:


> i'm debating on a cable streaming service, but i'm not signing up for one immediately. i have great ota signal, and have netflix, paramount+, showime, and peacock - my tivos do not support ota, but next day streaming is ok for me, i've been streaming for years.


Yeah, assuming OTA plus those streaming services have you covered for whatever live sports you watch, and you don't care about the three cable news/politics channels, you'll be fine without live cable TV.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, assuming OTA plus those streaming services have you covered for whatever live sports you watch, and you don't care about the three cable news/politics channels, you'll be fine without live cable TV.


i (generally) only watch tennis, so an espn3 sub for 4 months each year should cover me. 🎾


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NorthAlabama said:


> i (generally) only watch tennis, so an espn3 sub for 4 months each year should cover me. 🎾


A $35/mo subscription to Sling's Orange package is going to be the cheapest way to go. No need to even use their app, you can use the Sling login to authenticate the ESPN app and watch content from ESPN, ESPN 2 and ESPN 3 there.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

My hope is that when Cable stops or mostly stops with video that they will have to compete for high-speed internet. Higher speeds and lower costs just to stay in the game. Internet as a commodity where everyone has very fast connections would open the doors for virtual reality, doctor visits, buy and sell cars, houses, everything. Maybe that's what Meta is working on. We could live in a big cardboard box and VR could make it look like a castle! LOL I'd Sir Michael


----------



## danorum (Nov 25, 2015)

I have been seriously thinking about the in between route of switching from comcast to YouTube TV. The cable portion of my xfinity bill is $127 and I could get YT for $65 and have my dvr in the cloud.


----------



## 'isisdave (4 mo ago)

Here in Evansville IN, my view of Spectrum's website doesn't show any cable TV option -- only streaming. Is this regional or everywhere?

The general ad we see on local OTA tv is $49 a month each for Internet or TV, but the local Internet offer on the website is $20 and streaming TV is $40, for 24 months. And they mention only Select at 120+ channels, although there are add-ons, but different from earlier ones. This may because Astound just bought out the local WOW Internet/cable system, but maybe it's a test market or ???


----------



## Tbucketman (4 mo ago)

cwoody222 said:


> While I don’t disagree that for the foreseeable future streaming will offer more content than cable, the days of streaming offering “the entirety” is already over.
> 
> Netflix regularly pulls content - often because the rights-holder wants to put it on their own service (The Office on Peacock, for example).
> 
> ...


I recently went to Spectrum DVRs to replace my TiVo units (cable cards were dropped). I had a problem with one and had a technician work the problem. He said the DVRs are a temporary solution since Spectrum is going to streaming.


----------



## Starfire500 (May 20, 2021)

danorum said:


> I have been seriously thinking about the in between route of switching from comcast to YouTube TV. The cable portion of my xfinity bill is $127 and I could get YT for $65 and have my dvr in the cloud.


Go for it.I have Youtube TV and think it is great for the price.


----------



## sender_name (Feb 12, 2005)

MrDell said:


> Very true…. I think NBC is testing the waters…. Starting September 12th. Days of our Lives is moving over exclusively to Peacock… so if you’re looking to continue to watch this show then you must subscribe to Peacock! I think that this may start a trend… we’ll see


This has my mom in a panic 
She loves to watch on her Tivo and doesn't understand that technically the streaming would work the same way...


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Tbucketman said:


> I recently went to Spectrum DVRs to replace my TiVo units (cable cards were dropped). I had a problem with one and had a technician work the problem. He said the DVRs are a temporary solution since Spectrum is going to streaming.


Where are you located and why do you say “cable cards were dropped”?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

'isisdave said:


> Here in Evansville IN, my view of Spectrum's website doesn't show any cable TV option -- only streaming. Is this regional or everywhere?
> 
> The general ad we see on local OTA tv is $49 a month each for Internet or TV, but the local Internet offer on the website is $20 and streaming TV is $40, for 24 months. And they mention only Select at 120+ channels, although there are add-ons, but different from earlier ones.


I know that Charter has revamped their cable TV packages recently in a lot of areas, maybe nationwide. But I think only offering it via streaming (IPTV) through the Spectrum TV app might just be in your area. Maybe they're testing that out? And I bet if you called in and told them you want cable TV via a traditional cable box, they'd sell it to you.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

My concern is that Streaming will eventually all have forced, un-skipable commercials with no option for an Ad free tier and things will be worse than ever.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Seems to me with all these services, the TivoStream4k will become more relevant. It is still the only device 5hat you can search and find out where you can find a show. Roku doesn't do it, Google doesn't and my LG TV does not do that. Tivo:1 Others:0


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Another issue...many channels are unavailable on cable but are on xfinity stream. Basically Comcast forces you to use up your 1.2 tb of data to watchvwhat should be on cable. Can we sue them or atbleast be exempt from the data usage on stream? ( no longer beta,btw)


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

sender_name said:


> This has my mom in a panic
> She loves to watch on her Tivo and doesn't understand that technically the streaming would work the same way...


I completely understand! 😊 … My wife loves “ Days “ and is somewhat technically challenged. Luckily, having a “smart Tv”, pressing the home button on the remote brings you from the TiVo input to the app screen where I loaded Peacock. Made it an easier transition!


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bareyb said:


> My concern is that Streaming will eventually all have forced, un-skipable commercials with no option for an Ad free tier and things will be worse than ever.


If they support TVE than you can pipe it through Channels DVR and strip the commercials. I also recorded Amazon FreeVee Bosch Legacy to PlayOn cloud and then downloaded it to Channels and it stripped the commercials.
YTTV/Hulu Live/Even Comcast/others all allow you to do the same thing on Channels directly.

On a side note I watch very little commercial supported TV. All the good stuff is on premium services now.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

I just have to laugh because I remember all the whining about the cost of cable and channels people didn't want, and just wanting to pay for what you watch and Yada Yada Yada... 

Well, now you got it. Forced to streaming sticks with a plethora of different apps you have to bounce back and forth. If you don't use some aggregate app to keep track of everything you forget what was on what app, forget to finish watching a series because your adhd has you binging something else. Sports is a bigger ****ing mess because each service wants a piece of the pie and the same sport could be on apple, Amazon, paramount, peacock and so on. 

And then the commercial whiners... Oh my lord. It's like all these studios should produce content out of the goodness of their hearts for our enjoyment. Commercials help pay for it and a vast majority (who are usually plenty vocal about it) wouldn't pay what it would cost if there were truly no commercials. You'd probably pay $500 per month if ALL of the content you watched had no commercials. It's quite comical. 

Oh no, my life is so important that those extra 12 minutes of commercials an hour are depriving the world of my greatness. Godz the productivity I could cram into that time. If they only knew... 🙄 Get over yourselves. That extra time you're doing what? Curing cancer? Solving global warming? Perfecting hydrogen capture via photosynthesis? Oh wait, you have the sustainable formula for solid state batteries. Yeah, that extra 12 minutes for you to focus on your phone and surfing and looking up stuff is just so crucial to your well being. Please. 

Yes, being quite facetious. How heated were you getting and couldn't wait to reply? 😏


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

dbpaddler said:


> I just have to laugh because I remember all the whining about the cost of cable and channels people didn't want, and just wanting to pay for what you watch and Yada Yada Yada...
> 
> Well, now you got it. Forced to streaming sticks with a plethora of different apps you have to bounce back and forth. If you don't use some aggregate app to keep track of everything you forget what was on what app, forget to finish watching a series because your adhd has you binging something else. Sports is a bigger ****ing mess because each service wants a piece of the pie and the same sport could be on apple, Amazon, paramount, peacock and so on.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of what you say but I will also say that regarding commercial supported entertainment I tend to stay away from. I will pay. Why because I want to be the customer. When it’s ad supported somebody else is the customer and it’s designed to fit them first.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

zalusky said:


> I agree with most of what you say but I will also say that regarding commercial supported entertainment I tend to stay away from. I will pay. Why because I want to be the customer. When it’s ad supported somebody else is the customer and it’s designed to fit them first.


I could see ad supported becoming more popular as things get more and more fragmented. 

People that were used to one stop shopping with a Tivo dvr will just get more and more and more annoyed with how things progress between commercials and the number of apps needed to watch a similar level of content they were used to. Add in the whole subscribe, binge and cancel philosophy many seem to take to try and minimize expense, will only get more frustrating over time. 

Funny thing. I'm a big tennis fan. Totally missed most of the US Open because I couldn't be bothered with ESPN. Didn't see it on network TV and relegated to some clips and YouTube which already took away the luster because I knew the outcome. So when push comes to shove, I won't be watching much tennis, and I'll find other things to do with my time than sit and watch tennis. 

We were joking about the superbowl moving to pay per view. And honestly, if I weren't part of a larger group watching it together, I wouldn't pay for it. Maybe if the Eagles were in it, but otherwise, no. Because I would have to pay for it and still watch commercials. So now they're double dipping off me, and I'll be content to watch highlights from Twitter and YouTube the next day. 

So my soapbox rant with how this is all shaking out is what was once simple, seamless and convenient has become tedious, fragmented and annoying. Potentially it could be more expensive too. And while there might be more content to watch, it's not like there are more hours of the day to spend watching it. So does it really do you any good? 

And I think it'll just lead to more attempts at account sharing and pirating. Companies trying to do more to prevent it or monetize it to limit it. And it just becomes one big giant mess. It's comical. Like the networks moving crap to their streaming app, yet they still have commercials. So if you're going to have commercials, then leave it on the damn broadcast network. I honestly haven't watched one episode of Seal Team since it left broadcast TV and was a big fan of the show. And as more shows leave network for the app, they just fall off my radar. Phillies go to Prime or Apple TV, I listen on the radio. Actually, most sports end up like that for me. 

I'm pretty tech savvy, but the more fragmented things become and less of what I previously watched broadcast wise gets moved to apps, I watch less of that content. Maybe I'm a small minority in that regard, I don't know. But the older I get, the less I really care about "must see TV" so to speak. Haven't even watched The GOT prequel, Rings of Power and so on. And I geek out on that stuff normally. If/when I get to it, I'll get to it. I'll throw on Bing Bang reruns and get other things done as it plays in the background.


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

And sorry. That was some heavy rambling.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

dbpaddler said:


> the productivity I could cram into that time.


Yours is a tone-deaf argument.

It is not only about the (often very considerable) extra time commitment due to commercial breaks. Advertising in our capitalist culture is by its very nature manipulative and duplicitous, and I find most of them intellectually insulting (whether commercial, political, or otherwise) inasmuch as they are largely geared to the lowest common denominator. I refuse to be subjected to them against my will if there is any practical way to avoid them. 

Then there is the aesthetic aspect involved in having your movie or other content abruptly interrupted at various intervals for some jarringly incongruous product pitch.

I am happy to pay for the ad-free tier; but when price is a consideration I would rather forgo the service a month or more at a time to save money than have to settle for the AVOD version.



dbpaddler said:


> And sorry. That was some heavy rambling.


Amen, brother!


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

dbpaddler said:


> I could see ad supported becoming more popular as things get more and more fragmented.
> 
> People that were used to one stop shopping with a Tivo dvr will just get more and more and more annoyed with how things progress between commercials and the number of apps needed to watch a similar level of content they were used to. Add in the whole subscribe, binge and cancel philosophy many seem to take to try and minimize expense, will only get more frustrating over time.
> 
> ...


I say BS. Telephones used to be simple you dial and talk. Now they have all sorts of nuances and complications to use but you can do so much with them now. That complication has not stopped people from using them. Everybody has them now. Parents even buy them for their kids. The same rule does apply to TV. It's no longer turn on the TV and watch one of 4 channels. We have more choice than we can possibly consume. Much of that choice requires us to use apps. A lot of previously mainstream shows are now moving into that model leaving broadcast. 

What has happened is a lot of content providers were use to massive growth and built their business around that growth. Well you can't do that forever. For the moment they are trying to give it an extra nudge by introducing advertising tiers. We shall see how much growth that continues to give them. The jury is still out. Their is also pressure to push the advertising model because as I said we are not the customer anymore the advertisers are the customers and they have lots of money. Some media people like Disney want to do what Google does and cross market with targeted ads and sell your viewing behavior etc. I for one will pay to minimize that world as much as possible. I don't go to every movie on the theater and I don't subscribe to every content channel.


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

dbpaddler said:


> just have to laugh because I remember all the whining about the cost of cable and channels people didn't want, and just wanting to pay for what you watch and Yada Yada Yada...
> 
> Well, now you got it. Forced to streaming sticks with a plethora of different apps you have to bounce back and forth.


Completely agree,…. The only difference is that by streaming from different sources, it is much easier to control costs by juggling subscriptions from different streaming services after you are caught up with the series you enjoy! It takes a little work keeping up but I believe it ends up cheaper than subscribing to a cable package …. Especially if you have good OTA reception for your locals with your TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

*TV Networks Have a New Role: Farm Teams for Streaming Shows*


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

tommage1 said:


> I like to watch White Sox games (with a LOT of fast forwarding, baseball can get sloooooooow nowadays, especially with the replay/reviews).


Off topic so I'll be brief. That is my complaint as well but one of the three new rules coming next season is the pitch timer. It not only limits the time between pitches (both the pitcher and batter will have time limits) but it also limits the number of times the pitcher can throw to a base occupied by a runner and the number of times the pitcher can step off the rubber. Looking forward to THAT!


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

zalusky said:


> I say BS. Telephones used to be simple you dial and talk. Now they have all sorts of nuances and complications to use but you can do so much with them now. That complication has not stopped people from using them. Everybody has them now. Parents even buy them for their kids. The same rule does apply to TV. It's no longer turn on the TV and watch one of 4 channels. We have more choice than we can possibly consume. Much of that choice requires us to use apps. A lot of previously mainstream shows are now moving into that model leaving broadcast.
> 
> What has happened is a lot of content providers were use to massive growth and built their business around that growth. Well you can't do that forever. For the moment they are trying to give it an extra nudge by introducing advertising tiers. We shall see how much growth that continues to give them. The jury is still out. Their is also pressure to push the advertising model because as I said we are not the customer anymore the advertisers are the customers and they have lots of money. Some media people like Disney want to do what Google does and cross market with targeted ads and sell your viewing behavior etc. I for one will pay to minimize that world as much as possible. I don't go to every movie on the theater and I don't subscribe to every content channel.


But you can still just dial a number and just make a call. And you can do it with a basic dumb phone or a $1500 smartphone. You can do that with a dumb phone on an extremely cheap cell plan and not have everything you do get tracked to boot. 

The ability to do the same with TV is dwindling. You can say the steaming device is your one stop shop, but that is like walking into a mall with a hundred different stores. And that store that was your go to for it all no longer carries your favorite product. The mfg pulled it and opened a company direct store on the other side of the mall on the 2nd floor. And that staple product you bought weekly was pulled as well because that company also went the direct route, and of course their store is at the other end of the mall on the first floor. And that product was highly subsidized and pretty much cost you nothing. Now you can get it for next to nothing, but you have to sacrifice some of your time for it. Or you can pay a premium and get it right away. 

The jury isn't out in that respect. Their verdict was in last year.

At least my favorite product, the NFL will, for the foreseeable future, ALWAYS have my home team game on broadcast TV be it a national game that's on prime, ESPN and so on. And that is something unique. Because my Phillies have a game on Apple or Amazon, and that's it. Not even the mighty Comcast can overcome that. And that's when I just listen to the radio... And I have Amazon and Apple (for now since its free). Why do I not watch it? Because the broadcast team sucks beyond belief. Impossible to watch a sporting event when the announcers are clueless and constantly wrong, while your normal announcers are at home watching the game saying the same thing. Water down the product and that's what happens. Welcome to streaming sports. 

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## dbpaddler (Sep 25, 2004)

MrDell said:


> Completely agree,…. The only difference is that by streaming from different sources, it is much easier to control costs by juggling subscriptions from different streaming services after you are caught up with the series you enjoy! It takes a little work keeping up but I believe it ends up cheaper than subscribing to a cable package …. Especially if you have good OTA reception for your locals with your TiVo.


But as with most subscriptions, they count on that absentee business because there are always people that forget to cancel, it drops off the radar, and they're paying for it and not using it. The Planet Fitness model. We might have marked the cancel date in our calendars for follow up, but not the average person. 

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

dbpaddler said:


> But as with most subscriptions, they count on that absentee business because there are always people that forget to cancel, it drops off the radar, and they're paying for it and not using it. The Planet Fitness model. We might have marked the cancel date in our calendars for follow up, but not the average person.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk


Cable has always been more expensive. They nickel and dime you with fees be it broadcast fees, local utility fees, what ever. With streaming you know the total price Streaming ALSO gives you a huge back catalog of all the seasons of what ever show you are watching. That does not work with Cable and/or broadcast.

The media companies have always wanted to eliminate the middle man and now they have. At least now you can fragment it a little. Peacock and Disney don't make content I am interested in. Now I can choose not to pay for it.


----------



## Mukwonago (Dec 1, 2019)

cwoody222 said:


> Where are you located and why do you say “cable cards were dropped”?


I think on Sept 10, 2020, the FCC changes it's rules mandating that cable providers support 3rd party receivers and specifically cable cards. They are no longer forced to provide cable cards and in some markets (many threads in the forum with members posting the letters) the cable providers have killed the cable cards and effectively killed the Tivo's in that region. It is believed that this is going to become a real problem relatively soon, for all cable card users.


----------



## MissLynn (Oct 25, 2005)

I don't like streaming. Why does nobody complain about it? If I want to rewind on cable tv shows (live or recorded), I can see the picture and stop where I want to. On streaming, its a crap shoot. It rewinds too far or not far enough. Tivo is a cadillac. Streaming is a model T. When I record a season of a show on cable, I like to keep all episodes or at least the last few of a season. When the new season starts I can refresh my brain as to what happened last year before starting the new season. I didn't know if LaBrea was going to come back but I kept the last few episodes.


----------



## alp44 (May 21, 2003)

danorum said:


> I have been seriously thinking about the in between route of switching from comcast to YouTube TV. The cable portion of my xfinity bill is $127 and I could get YT for $65 and have my dvr in the cloud.


That's my concern as well. I'm (don't laugh) loading up my DVD library, readying for the day that happens. I'm getting an HD antenna (NYC) for live local 4k content, and have a ton of streaming subs now, so I think I'm going to go for it. I love TiVo, but feel they have become a lonely, marooned, survivor on a tiny island, keeping company with a half-deflated volleyball.


----------



## shawn klawitter (Apr 16, 2017)

Fire tv does search across apps, so does android tv. A really good one believe it or not is the directtv stream streaming box. It’s based on android tv and searches across apps and live tv/on demand at the same time. The directv box is the winner for me.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

The TiVo system was great, season pass and not have to look up when say Blue Bloods is coming back in the fall, it was easy, now more and more I have to remember what service has the series I was watching on streaming, most do remember what episode I am on. I guess all good things have to come to an end.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Mukwonago said:


> I think on Sept 10, 2020, the FCC changes it's rules mandating that cable providers support 3rd party receivers and specifically cable cards. They are no longer forced to provide cable cards and in some markets (many threads in the forum with members posting the letters) the cable providers have killed the cable cards and effectively killed the Tivo's in that region. It is believed that this is going to become a real problem relatively soon, for all cable card users.


Aside from a single user complaint here and a scary sounding marketing letter sent there, not a single major cable company has dropped CableCard support In any region.

The threat is looming but has not happened anywhere yet.

Thats why I wanted to clarify with this user. And he confirmed Spectrum didn’t drop support. It’s up just their normal level of ineptitude that drove him away.


----------



## charlotte110 (Nov 9, 2010)

danorum said:


> I have been seriously thinking about the in between route of switching from comcast to YouTube TV. The cable portion of my xfinity bill is $127 and I could get YT for $65 and have my dvr in the cloud.


We have You Tube TV and really recommend it.


----------



## Jason Clifton (Jan 1, 2017)

danorum said:


> I have been seriously thinking about the in between route of switching from comcast to YouTube TV. The cable portion of my xfinity bill is $127 and I could get YT for $65 and have my dvr in the cloud.


Switched to Hulu plus live tv a couple of months ago. Once everything is on demand you'll be surprised how little you record anything. Will miss the simplicity of the TV but not the large Spectrum bill.


----------



## MrDell (Jul 8, 2012)

lessd said:


> The TiVo system was great, season pass and not have to look up when say Blue Bloods is coming back in the fall, it was easy, now more and more I have to remember what service has the series I was watching on streaming, most do remember what episode I am on. I guess all good things have to come to an end.


Yes ... Tivo is really second to none! I have been doing more and more streaming these days and many services send out an email or home screen alert when a new episode or season begins to make things a little easier, but I agree.... Tivo is much more "user friendly"


----------



## Suncoast (Jan 18, 2017)

bareyb said:


> My concern is that Streaming will eventually all have forced, un-skipable commercials with no option for an Ad free tier and things will be worse than ever.


So... That's when I say goodbye to paid streaming. Why are some getting so addicted to these fees and terms? 

They can't produce million dollar episodes on virtual channels if nobody is subscribed. Take in point CNN Premium's recent demise. 

Jusy say bye bye overpriced, overbearing streamers. You won't, you fickle..... but if you did they would change.


----------



## MissLynn (Oct 25, 2005)

With cable I can have my tv tuned to one channel and watch Chicago Fire, Med and PD - one right after the other. Streaming means I have to select Fire episode. Then select Med episode...
Since America's Got Talent is several hours long, I don't record it. I might not be sitting in front of the TV the whole time. When its over and the next show comes on its automatic! I tend not to watch a lot of old old shows with one exception, Law and Order because I did not watch all of the seasons as they came on.


----------



## Suncoast (Jan 18, 2017)

Mukwonago said:


> I think on Sept 10, 2020, the FCC changes it's rules mandating that cable providers support 3rd party receivers and specifically cable cards. They are no longer forced to provide cable cards....


Correct. (And I'm surprised Biden hasn't brought this Obama era rule back.) However most cable companies will continue to support the cards if you already have one. So if your Tivo dies, keep the card!


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

mattyro7878 said:


> Seems to me with all these services, the TivoStream4k will become more relevant. It is still the only device 5hat you can search and find out where you can find a show. Roku doesn't do it, Google doesn't and my LG TV does not do that. Tivo:1 Others:0


Apple TV does it and Fire TV too. Tivo:1 Others:2


----------



## TimELiebe (Mar 9, 2016)

dbpaddler said:


> I just have to laugh because I remember all the whining about the cost of cable and channels people didn't want, and just wanting to pay for what you watch and Yada Yada Yada...


Well, I can think of one benefit - not one PENNY of my money is going to Fox News any more! 🤷‍♂️ Hey, you asked....

Even back when streaming was new, we could see the possibility of a la carte meaning "You pay more because you have more people w/their hands out" - but a combination of disgust at the monopolistic practices of Big Cable, Obama's push for National Broadband standards that made at least 25Mbps available to most people, and as every studio or even producer saw they could make money and control piracy directly via this new technology, meant streaming quickly became viable. Yes, there were those of us who figured out nobody would end up storing _*everything*_ so we'd have to choose from what was available, but back in those days we also had a robust DVD/Blu-Ray market, so if I wanted something I could probably buy it on a disc. 

I remember when Netflix first went to streaming we didn't want any, b/c our "broadband" was 5Mbps down, 1/2Mbps up, and both my then-wife and I relied on the Internet for work. But...we moved and were able to get 25Mbps for less than we'd been paying for our old broadband, and she discovered Netflix had every episode of LAW & ORDER and NYPD BLUE ever on streaming, so we got streaming.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

lessd said:


> The TiVo system was great, season pass and not have to look up when say Blue Bloods is coming back in the fall, it was easy, now more and more I have to remember what service has the series I was watching on streaming, most do remember what episode I am on. I guess all good things have to come to an end.


It's amazing to me that nobody has come up with an _inexpensive, easy to implement_ (that's the key phrase) DVR App for streaming services.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

dbpaddler said:


> Yes, being quite facetious. How heated were you getting and couldn't wait to reply? 😏


I wasn't getting heated. I was thinking how badly this platform needs a friend request button. Everything you said was spot on.


----------



## andy7121 (Aug 11, 2017)

danorum said:


> I have been seriously thinking about the in between route of switching from comcast to YouTube TV. The cable portion of my xfinity bill is $127 and I could get YT for $65 and have my dvr in the cloud.


When Spectrum turned off my TIVO cable card last month, I started using YouTube TV. Mostly happy, but I miss some features I enjoyed on TIVO. YTTV does not have a "resume" feature to continue viewing where you left off. There is no skip feature -- you have to fast forward in 15-second increments. Although the program thumbnails on the screen are attractive, they consume a lot of real estate. Adding a show to your watchlist is easier on the APP than on the TV screen. 

Spectrum sent me a couple of their DVR boxes, hoping I would bite. I sent them back. I should have removed the cable cards in their DVR boxes and installed one in my TIVO.

Adios Spectrum cable TV. I still have their Internet and land-line phone.


----------



## andy7121 (Aug 11, 2017)

Tbucketman said:


> I recently went to Spectrum DVRs to replace my TiVo units (cable cards were dropped). I had a problem with one and had a technician work the problem. He said the DVRs are a temporary solution since Spectrum is going to streaming.


When Spectrum sent me a DVR (which I decided not to use and returned), I should have taken the cable card out of their machine and installed it in my TIVO.


----------



## andy7121 (Aug 11, 2017)

bareyb said:


> It's amazing to me that nobody has come up with an _inexpensive, easy to implement_ (that's the key phrase) DVR App for streaming services.


They have. It's called YouTube TV. YTTV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

andy7121 said:


> When Spectrum turned off my TIVO cable card last month, I started using YouTube TV. Mostly happy, but I miss some features I enjoyed on TIVO. YTTV does not have a "resume" feature to continue viewing where you left off. There is no skip feature -- you have to fast forward in 15-second increments. Although the program thumbnails on the screen are attractive, they consume a lot of real estate. Adding a show to your watchlist is easier on the APP than on the TV screen.
> 
> Spectrum sent me a couple of their DVR boxes, hoping I would bite. I sent them back. I should have removed the cable cards in their DVR boxes and installed one in my TIVO.
> 
> Adios Spectrum cable TV. I still have their Internet and land-line phone.


A nice thing about these streaming cable TV services is that they're all contract-free. So if you're not completely happy with YTTV, you might drop it for a month and check out DirecTV Stream, which has a cloud DVR and on-screen user interface that's more similar to TiVo and other traditional cable DVRs. Like YTTV, it lets you store an unlimited amount of content but only for 9 months. The cost of DTV Stream is higher too -- $70/mo for the entry-level package, $90/mo if you want some extra (mostly sports) channels. But it also has noticeably better HD picture quality. And they also give you the option of buying a dedicated streaming device with full-size voice remote. (You don't rent them, you buy them.) If you go that route, I'd recommend just getting them refurbished for $50 each instead of new for $120 each. Either way, you get the same 1-year warranty.


----------



## pl1 (Jan 18, 2007)

andy7121 said:


> YTTV does not have a "resume" feature to continue viewing where you left off.


YTTV does actually have the resume feature. It requires you to have the watch history set to on in your Google account. I had thought the same thing when I first tried YTTV, and someone mentioned this. I checked my Google account and sure enough, history was off, which I would prefer, personally, but to get resume, it has to be on.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

andy7121 said:


> When Spectrum turned off my TIVO cable card last month


So they finally did it, eh? I wonder how long it will be before Comcast/Xfinity does the same thing.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Joey Bagadonuts said:


> So they finally did it, eh? I wonder how long it will be before Comcast/Xfinity does the same thing.


Comcast has more traditional cable boxes with CableCARDs. I suspect at least a year before they do the same, but probably more like 2-3. We'll gradually lose channels as they migrate to IPTV.

The writing is on the wall, and the lack of communication from TiVo shows that they have no plans once CableCARDs are no longer supported. Sad because there are a lot of devoted TiVo users, TiVo could find a way to stream/record IPTV with different carriers, and the GUI is much better than other cable boxes. They could increase their customer base by focusing on this.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts (Mar 13, 2006)

southerndoc said:


> Comcast has more traditional cable boxes with CableCARDs. I suspect at least a year before they do the same, but probably more like 2-3. We'll gradually lose channels as they migrate to IPTV.
> 
> The writing is on the wall, and the lack of communication from TiVo shows that they have no plans once CableCARDs are no longer supported. Sad because there are a lot of devoted TiVo users, TiVo could find a way to stream/record IPTV with different carriers, and the GUI is much better than other cable boxes. They could increase their customer base by focusing on this.


Knowing just enough about tech stuff to get me in trouble, I have to ask. What is the upside for cable companies to stop supporting CableCards? It can't be for the hope to get TiVo users to begin leasing the Cable Company's DVR, is it? Is it the cost in supporting CableCard technology? They could just pass that off to CableCard users. With the number of cord-cutting customers cable companies are already losing, I would think they'd want to do whatever they can to keep customers. The only reason I am still with Xfinity is because we not only thoroughly enjoy our TiVo devices (we are 20+ year customers), but we're also spoiled by their ease of use. It will be a sad day in this household when we're forced to look elsewhere for DVR services but when that happens, it will be good-bye Xfinity and hello Google Fiber and probably YouTube TV.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Joey Bagadonuts said:


> Knowing just enough about tech stuff to get me in trouble, I have to ask. What is the upside for cable companies to stop supporting CableCards? It can't be for the hope to get TiVo users to begin leasing the Cable Company's DVR, is it? Is it the cost in supporting CableCard technology? They could just pass that off to CableCard users. With the number of cord-cutting customers cable companies are already losing, I would think they'd want to do whatever they can to keep customers. The only reason I am still with Xfinity is because we not only thoroughly our TiVo devices (we are 20+ year customers), but we're also spoiled by their ease of use. It will be a sad day in this household when we're forced to look elsewhere for DVR services but when that happens, it will be good-bye Xfinity and hello Google Fiber and probably YouTube TV.


Cable companies want you on their platforms to analyze and market their products to you. They can't do that if you are on Tivo. That being said Tivo is a tiny tiny market share now and no way its cost effective to maintain the infrastructure relative to more modern delivery vehicles.

Moving on the next generation is not on Tivo and is streaming all the way. Cable companies need to figure out ways to compete in that realm and maintaining ancient technology is not the way.

It's like saying you want to stay on Mac OS 9 because you like your old Mac 2 you still want dial up.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

@Joey Bagadonuts I'm like you. The only reason I stay with Xfinity for TV is because of my TiVo. As soon as they stop supporting CableCARDs and I can no longer use my TiVo, I plan to switch to DirecTV Stream or just forego traditional cable TV and rely on streaming services/OTA TV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Joey Bagadonuts said:


> Knowing just enough about tech stuff to get me in trouble, I have to ask. What is the upside for cable companies to stop supporting CableCards? It can't be for the hope to get TiVo users to begin leasing the Cable Company's DVR, is it? Is it the cost in supporting CableCard technology?


The number of cable TV customers still using CableCARD at this point is essentially a rounding error. The average number of TV customers those companies lose _each quarter_ is typically greater than the number they still have left on CableCARD. So it's just not a priority to do anything to go out of their way to keep those few customers. The reason we're seeing Charter starting to dump them is because they're making upgrades to their network that make it incompatible with CableCARD technology. It's possible that they could spend additional money trying to engineer some kind of workaround but it wouldn't make sense given how few customers they'll lose otherwise.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> Streaming Is Now Bigger Than Cable TV (msn.com)
> 
> "It's likely streaming will fall back behind cable TV this fall as sports get back into full swing. But cord-cutting will eventually cement the trend of streaming taking over as the predominant form of television entertainment. In fact, cord-cutting is accelerating.
> Over the past 12 months, approximately 5.43 million American households cut the cord, according to Leichtman Research. That compares to 4.55 million in the preceding 12 months."


Industry analyst MoffettNathanson noted a record 6.1% decline in pay TV subscribers in 2Q of this year. They believe that the cable bundle is in a mere 50.5% of US households, the lowest level in more than 30 years. I believe penetration peaked around a decade ago at over 80%. Given that the 50.5% figure is as of nearly three months ago, we may by now have crossed the threshold where more homes do NOT have cable TV than have it.



https://www.lightreading.com/videomedia/pay-tv-picture-worsens-as-sub-losses-hit-19m-in-q2/d/d-id/780696?



Over the next few years, we're going to see all of the live sports available on linear channels -- the last pillar holding up the cable bundle -- become available on one direct-to-consumer streaming service or another, with Disney bringing the entirety of ESPN to market via a standalone app(s).


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

And it won't be cheap. DTC Sports will cost a lot. More and more the cable company is the one that's brings you internet (Comcast), you think you can leave the game.. No playa..


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

tenthplanet said:


> And it won't be cheap. DTC Sports will cost a lot.


There is price, and there is value. For some, such as serious sports fans, the value may justify paying the price. For those that do not watch sports, (eventually) removing the RSNs and ESPN from the bundle (cable, OTT, or vMVPD) will reduce those customers fees by a significant amount. Many people wanted more a-la-carte cable channel pricing and/or out-of-market content, and the sports fanatics are about to see how that works out for them and their favorite teams (it is not expected to be smooth sailing for all).


----------

