Streaming TV vs. Cable

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

DADoES

DADoES

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
15,780
Location
TX, U.S. of A.
 
The area cable TV provider is eliminating cable TV for streaming.  They've apparently developed a streaming/app service with choice of an "economy" (20 channels) or "standard" (100 channels) package, plus add-on packages "digital value" (29), "movie services" (39), and "music" (50).  Includes 200 hrs of "DVR in the cloud" storage.  Introductory offer includes up to three free Fire TV Sticks.  Also works with Nvidia Shield, Google Phone/Tablet, Apple TV/iPhone/iPad, or PC browser.

Also requires their cable Internet service, or their TV/modem (rental) if on other Internet services.

The parents have had cable TV for years with the provider of question, so are losing it effective 1/16/2023 if not signed-up for the streaming service.

I switched mom today to the provider's Internet service so that part is covered (after they fix whatever is the problem causing very slow and erratic speeds).

Mom has absolutely no understanding about any of it.  She'll never use the cloud DVR part.

I'm trying to figure out if a Roku or buying a Fire Stick would end up a better $$ prospective than paying for the provider's streaming service.

She doesn't watch much TV but I've been unable to get her to write a list of specific programs.  Some game shows, sitcoms, news, maybe some daytime talk shows.  The area network affiliates typically have no-cost news apps.

A trick is that she likes to watch Astros baseball, and sometimes Seahawks football.  I don't watch sports but my understanding is it requires a paid subscription to ... something, which seems to be the "standard" + "digital value" packages ... highest $$$.

Looking for input from others about what they're using.
 
Did you look into what's available Over-the-Air in your area? With an antenna I get about 25 channels. Most of what your mom wants to watch could be available OTA.

My elderly parents have cable but mom says she would cancel it if it wasn't for dad who likes the History channel, Nat Geo etc. From what I know about Roku it seems like it would be a good add-on option to whatever local programs are available OTA.[this post was last edited: 12/27/2022-00:37]
 
I have a Roku TV in my living room and a Fire Stick in my bedroom. We have basic cable and internet from Comcast/Xfinity. Every year our cable bill goes up and I try to renegotiate it to no avail so after the new year I'm cancelling it. The only things I watch over the air are the news and Judge Judy anyway.
 
What really irritates me about cable TV is that you have to pay for so many channels that we never watch and never will watch. Plus they charge a $25 per mo. fee for broadcast TV. WTF! The GD digital signal comes over the air for free, I seriously doubt that Comcast is paying the government or anyone else to transmit that signal to us. If we could have a roof top antenna I would consider getting rid of cable TV and stream the channels that aren’t able to be received over the digital HD signal.

More and more subscribers are going to start to ditch cable TV. If they were smart these companies would allow customers to choose the channels that they want on an a la carte basis. It would feel like less of a rip off if customers were only paying for the channels that they will actually watch.

Eddie
 
My niece lives in Portland's Historical district. No rooftop antenna or satellite dishes are allowed. You either have Time Warner cable, nothing or Roku. Those with Roku swear by it for saving money and more like a'la carte choices. I am going to look into it as Directv keeps charging more for extra shopping and garbage channels. Years ago I had Primestar, before Directv took them over. Primestar charged you a low fee for the signal and you chose what programs you wanted to see and you could cancel the program any time. Channels were cheap on Primestar most were under $1 per month.
 
I've had a Roku stick for a couple of years and would never go back to cable.  I paid once for the stick, and now the only monthly charges are for streaming services like Hulu, Netflix, Prime, etc.  You get to pick what you want -- including your high speed internet provider -- and the best thing of all is that I don't have to deal with those loathsome sports and shopping channels.  There are services that offer local channels as well, for a monthly fee.

 

There is definitely a learning curve with the streaming menu, but it's not a big deal once you get the hang of it with the remote.  Just be sure the TV has a port for the stick.  I prefer a dumb TV with a stick as opposed to a smart one that is self-contained.  I made the mistake of upgrading to a smart TV a few months ago and it has been aggravating me ever since, seemingly with a mind of its own, updating itself and reverting to factory defaults, etc.   Smart TVs have replaced setting the VCR as far as frequent urgent calls from your parents are concerned.
 
Like History Channel and Science Channel?

 

Look into Philo.  $25.00 a month, over 70 channels.

www.philo.com

$28 TV Subscription: Live & On-Demand TV Streaming Service | Philo

Philo's TV streaming service is available for only $28 a month! Enjoy live and on-demand TV, unlimited DVR and 70+ channels with Epix and Starz add-on options. A&E, AMC, BET, Comedy Central, Discovery Channel, Hallmark, VH1, Food Network, HGTV, MTV, TLC, AXS.
www.philo.com www.philo.com
 
 
I'm trying to figure if subscribing to networks or streaming sources à la carte for what mom wants to watch is more economical than the provider's prepared packages.  The cable bill is/was running $161 monthly not including internet.  They were on their local independent teleco's minimum internet of 25 Mbps @ $55/month (typically clocks 20 Mbps), much too slow for streaming.  100 Mbps is $95/month, 300 Mbps is $135/month ... so nope.

I upgraded her yesterday to the cable provider's 200 Mbps service $65/month.  It's running much slower and erratic on speed tests (1 to 40 Mbps, once each 85 and 135).  Remote tech guy identified problems, onsite appt in a couple days, possibly the coax drop from pole to house needs changing.  I'm on the same service (different town) and tested just now at 240 Mbps.

Adding the provider's charges for their full streaming package would be back to probably $185 monthly.

Hulu has a Live TV option at $70/month, which is still more total $$$ than seems reasonable.  Much less without Live TV.

Her little bedroom TV is both dumb and no HDMI.  Her family room TV isn't smart but has a couple HDMI jacks so a Fire Stick or Roku can be done.

I have a smart TV in my bedroom with Android OS.  It sometimes gets flaky/ornery.  I can deal with it but mom couldn't.
 
 

 

 

<h1 class="c-head_hed speakableText" style="font-size: 2.47059em; font-family: Sentinel, serif; letter-spacing: -0.032em; word-spacing: 0.15em; margin: 0px 0px 24px; line-height: 1.19048em; color: #141415;">Is It Cheaper to Pay for Streaming or Cable? We Do the Math</h1>

www.cnet.com

Streaming vs. Cable: Which One Saves You More Money?

Battle of the budget: As streaming prices climb, you may be wondering if it's better to stick to cable. We did the math.
www.cnet.com www.cnet.com
 
 
Matt, there will no longer be traditional cable TV available from the provider (Sparklight) ... as in a television signal fed into the home via a coax cable dropped from a utility pole and connected to the television.

Sparklight is discontinuing "cable TV" for a streaming platform of their concoction that combines groupings of channels into a choice of two basic packages (Economy and Standard), plus some optional add-on packages.

It works via:  Amazon Fire TV Stick, Nvidia Shield, Apple TV, iPhone/iPad, Sony & Sharp TVs with built-in Fire TV, PC or Mac with web browser.  It apparently doesn't work with Roku.  They provide up to three free Fire Sticks on an introductory offer.

The subscriber must have internet, either A) via Sparklight or B) another service.  An additional "TV box" must be rented from Sparklight if B.

So I suppose it's a type of packaged "cable TV" but only as a streaming platform over an internet connection.

The question is whether the economics are better via Sparklight's packaged channel choices (which includes a bunch of channels mom will never watch) or chosing among the array of other streaming services that are available via our own Roku or Fire Stick for specific desired channels to get the programs she wants to watch, IF they are available à la carte.  (DISH or DirecTV are also choices, there is nothing else available in this area.)
 
People are not informed

No one gets the newspaper anymore. Local TV stations are the remaining source of information about the community. Any cable package or satellite package that includes local stations is very expensive. The streaming packages with local stations are expensive also. Antenna reception varies and many cannot get the reception. One wonders how many died in Buffalo because they were really not aware how bad the storm would be. It was reported in the news 5 days ahead of time, in newspapers and on local TV. Our Sacramento library offers free New York Times and Wall Street Journal, on line. You have to log into the library and then into the news sources. Check out what your library offers on line for free and stay informed.
 
I use a roku streaming device and have for years

have had 3 of them thru the years the first one that came out a roku 2 xs but it failed so I got a roku express 4k+

my favorite podcast has a app on the roku and I watch that

I use weather nation for weather info

I do not watch too much but this works out fine for me there is so much to watch and it is free

Glenn got me to thinking about isp's so I have a post about isp's
 
 
Antenna is problematic at mom's location, in a weak zone, distant from the broadcast towers.  Everyone in the town had to have tall masts and boosters on their antennas back in the day and could receive only the Houston ABC, CBS, NBC affiliates, and two UHF independents.
 
Since OTA TV went to digital broadcasting in 2009,  I've been able to pull in channels that transmit from 45 miles away with just rabbit ears and an indoor "bowtie" UHF antenna.  This would never have been possible with analog signals.

 

With a good high gain antenna (even if it's an old school type), your parents may be able to get clear reception (it's all or nothing with digital) on most or all of the stations in their area.  At our previous home, I salvaged the UHF portion of a '70s rooftop antenna and mounted it in the attic.  The number of channels we received increased over what we were getting with rabbit ears/bowtie in an upstairs bedroom, and the signals were steady regardless of weather conditions.  In our current home, I'm using that same indoor antenna combination in a first floor bedroom and I'm still able to pull in about half of the OTA channels from Sutro tower in SF.  That's plenty for my 1950 Admiral, which I use once in a while to tune in when there's a breaking local story, watch Amy on Jeopardy, etc.
 
Like Ralph, I use a rooftop antenna aimed at the nearest broadcast point, which in my case is Mt. Sutro in SF, and get fantastic reception. According to Google Maps, it's about 20 miles between the Mt. Sutro broadcast antenna and my house. As the crow flies.

 

In fact when I retired I sought to conserve $$ and dropped the cable TV service. I get along OK with PBS and local news.
 

Similar threads

Ultramatic
Right to Repair
Replies
6
Views
7
vacerator
V
P
Now and then, you stumble upon a really product, reasonably priced and excellent value
Replies
10
Views
11
passatdoc
P

Latest posts

Back
Top