POLL: Have you gotten rid of cable TV?
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
I ditched cable in March 2009 and have barely noticed it was gone. Strangely I find myself missing sports on ESPN, TNT, Vs., etc. more than anything else. Good thing I'm not a hockey fan or else I'd almost never see any games on broadcast TV...
Same here.
My wife and I got rid of satellite service back in 2006 and have never regretted it. We had found ourselves sitting at home during the weekend staring at stuff on the tv that we had very little interest in. So we decided to turn it off and become more active. We don't even watch network tv unless it's football season. I'm a movie buff so I have a large dvd collection and netflix subscription and a big widescreen tv, and that suits me fine. Also, I've always been an avid reader, and I'd much rather do that than watch tv.
So whenever the tv comes on now it's because we actively want to watch something, we aren't just watching it to waste time. Life is too short for that.
I DVR a lot of reruns of things and watch them at my leisure. If I had access to a good service like Hulu (which, being in Canada, I don't) then that may mitigate some of that but not all of it as lots of stuff still isn't available that way. So no, I don't see myself getting rid of TV anytime soon.
And when it comes to the shows that I do watch that are new... I want to watch them right away because I'm impatient, and I want to watch them in good HD quality. TV is still the best option in that respect and I don't see that changing anytime soon. It'd be great if it did, but as long as the TV networks are the main content producers, TV is going to be the first up content distribution system.
And when it comes to the shows that I do watch that are new... I want to watch them right away because I'm impatient, and I want to watch them in good HD quality. TV is still the best option in that respect and I don't see that changing anytime soon. It'd be great if it did, but as long as the TV networks are the main content producers, TV is going to be the first up content distribution system.
I got rid of my cable shortly after the Beijing Olympics. I just don't watch that many programs that are still on the air. Those that I am interested in can be watched on disc, online, or at someone else's place/bar. There are substitutes available for practically everything, so I don't feel the urge to pay the monthly fee to watch things as they air.
I have Freeview, which is the UK version of basic television. We pay our licence fee to the BBC every year, just as everyone has to even if they subscribe to satellite or cable, and that's all we pay for. Most of what's on telly is crap, and we watch DVDs most evenings. The BBC still makes good shows and documentaries (I'm watching QI as I type this), and all four BBC channels are available on Freeview.
I ditched satellite a year or so ago. I just didn't have enough time to watch it to justify the cost. I might catch the occasional episode of Lost as it airs, but most of the time I end up waiting for it to be available on Hulu. It's far more convenient that way.
Hulu and Netflix for older shows covers most of my viewing habits anymore. I use a Mac Mini and Xbox for Netflix for home viewing. I bought the Mini when I took out the satellite to use as a cheapo HTPC. I already had the Xbox at home for Netflix viewing, and just needed something else for other types of streaming. So there was about $350 I spent finding a "replacement". But I was paying $70 a month for my subscription plus access fees.
I just saw the announcement of Google TV. Depending on how that turns out, and how much it costs, I might pick one of those up in the fall.
Hulu and Netflix for older shows covers most of my viewing habits anymore. I use a Mac Mini and Xbox for Netflix for home viewing. I bought the Mini when I took out the satellite to use as a cheapo HTPC. I already had the Xbox at home for Netflix viewing, and just needed something else for other types of streaming. So there was about $350 I spent finding a "replacement". But I was paying $70 a month for my subscription plus access fees.
I just saw the announcement of Google TV. Depending on how that turns out, and how much it costs, I might pick one of those up in the fall.
Dump cable? We dumped cable 13 years ago. Went to DISH network. Got the Premium package too. There's more to watch on TV than just scripted network dramas such as News, Documentaries, etc. The discussion here sort of answers as to why I find the membership on this forum to be "out of the loop" when it comes to breaking news stories. Sorry, Law & Order doesn't cut it for that kind of stuff.
Wow! 5 whole channels? The '70s called...they want their standards back.
We have over 100 HD channels, plus a shitload more SD channels.
The seventies
back then there was only one channel in Danish 
But seriously, as I said in the post, I rarely use more than two of 'em. Didn't even want the trouble of hooking the PC up to the cable; a DVB-T USB dongle does the job just as fine.
The seventies
back then there was only one channel in Danish [/QUOTE]
God, it must suck to live in Europe. Now I see why Britain names their channels after numbers. ie. Channel 4 for example.
No seriously, before the Cable TV revolution in the early '80s, any typical US household could pick up 3-5 channels over the air via their antenae. Usually the 3 networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS...there was no FOX back then) and one or two extremely local networks such as a PBS affiliate and maybe an additional religous channel or local news channel.
Then when the cable revolution hit, we started getting a bunch of new national networks, like ESPN, TBS, TNT, WGN, USA, MTV, HBO, SHOWTIME, and CINEMAX. Since then the US national network market has exploded. Name a personal interest of yours, there's a national network that specializes in it. Like auto racing? SPEED is your network. Like hunting or fishing? There's a couple channels for that. Like crime investigation shows? Try CI (Crime & Investigation). We've even got a gay/lesbian channel now. Plays reruns of The L-Word and Queer as Folk amongst other things.
Granted, I only watch a handful of channels myself, but it's really not about that. It's the large selection that makes it so great. I can't imagine only having a handful of channels to choose from in total.
In fact, with the growing customer base in satellite TV, each major satellite company, DISH and DirectTV are in constant competition to bring their customers more and more channels that the other provider may not have, and preferably in HD. In fact, the HD battle is where it's at now. Has been for the past 3 years. And I'd also say that there's been a whole shitload of brand new channels popping up just within the past couple of years. In fact, just realized today that there's a whole brand new HD weather channel where the NASA channel was previously in our channel guide.
Just because there's a whole load of HD channels doesn't mean they're all worth watching.
Me, I pretty much spend my waking hours watching baseball. And I can get that through MLB.TV.
Me, I pretty much spend my waking hours watching baseball. And I can get that through MLB.TV.
What a load of channels, yet all of that combined only manages to produce about ten seasons of shows running about 42 minutes each that I would care to watch (news, debates and the occasional documentary excluded)
A former acquaintance was showing off his satellite system, about 10 years ago. One rainy Saturday afternoon, we literally spent an hour flipping channels trying to find something worthwhile to watch. I commented, "This is like the Bruce Springsteen song 57 Channels and Nothin's On" and he said, "No, I have 120." Since he was clueless, I said, "Right. And there isn't anything worth watching. Screw this, why pay $50/month for all that and nothing worth watching."
My dad installed a satellite system at their summer house (no cable available there (and the net is 3G but excruciatingly slow)).
He had found the handful or two of channels he was interested in and installed those, but one night, while he was playing on his PC, mum and I took the grand tour of available channels; fascinating how much crappy jewellery and how many useless kitchen appliances you can buy in how many different languages
Needless to say; these are all free channels.
I just thought of something. I should have been more clear in my original post. I didn't just mean giving up cable for satellite. I meant ditching BOTH. No broadcast TV of any kind. That's what I'm contemplating. (I sure don't want some huge dish on my house...and besides satellite would cost me as much as cable anyway.)
I probably couldn't live without watching the Braves every day. I NEED my cable.
Huge satellite dish? Again...welcome to the '80s. Most dishes these days are no more than 2-3 feet wide. Our Dish 1000 is slightly oblong because it's a three LNB dish as it pulls signals from three different satellites. Two of which are fairly close, the 110 and 119, and then the 129 which is further to the west which comes in at lower signal strength.
But really in all seriousness, I find the premise of your original corrected question to be very strange, and somewhat naive even. Why? Well, this may be leading to one of the reasons why I don't frequent this forum anymore. And that's because if this is a growing trend of people dumping their cable/satellite services because they don't watch enough TV anymore to justify paying for the services, it may explain why a good portion of the participants on this forum seem to be so uninformed on a general basis of what's going on in this world. For example, I would post some news story in TNZ and people wouldn't believe it and basically call me a liar or making it up, all the while the story had been in the news for days or even weeks. And my response would be, "Don't you people ever watch the news?" I mean, don't call me stupid if you're not following current events in this fast moving world, while I am.
We don't carry channels just because there's a particular show we watch on them...we carry them because someday there might be something new that we will want to watch. I find it odd that people will subscribe to certain channels just to watch a particular show, like The Pacific on HBO, or Spartacus: Blood & Sand on STARZ, and then cancel the subscription after the show is over.
Quite frankly, I very rarely watch the original big four networks. Most of the programming I watch is on what we call the "cable channels".
I also don't get this "all these channels and nothing to watch" mentality. Sure, there are times, when there's nothing on that interests you, but ALL the time? No, not hardly. This tells me that the problem might just be with you, not with the plethora of programming. This tells me that you may not have broad enough interests to find something that you may like.
I've noticed in all my years of being a member of this forum, that many people have a very tight sense of interest in only a handful of sci-fi shows. The biggest one of course, Star Trek, which should be no surprise as this is indeed the TrekBBS, but com'on...if Star Trek is the only sci-fi show that you watch, then my lordy...get a life. Broaden your horizons...
And who here is it that spends every waking minute of their life watching baseball? Talk about being a fanatic. I can hardly stomach one game a day. And if my team isn't doing well, I don't even bother watching.
I get it, the number of channels has exploded in recent years (perhaps: decades) yet the width of programming hasn't (not to that extent anyway) so the obvious choice for us end-consumers is to limit the number of channels we pay to watch (as the programming is pretty much the same whether you have 10 or 100 channels)
I must admit that I come from a totally different background though; in Europe every country has a couple of public programming channels that you must pay a fee to (whether you watch them or not), which is why most of these are forced by law to broadcast a very wide selection of programmes (from M-TV style 'background pop' to ballet -if you will).
The end result is that whatever I can pick up with a USB-dongle is satisfactory in width as well as depth; I don't even need those 6 channels, I could get by with 2 or 3 of those and would still get a varied selection of what is around.
Similar threads
