@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thanksajdotcom said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Making the internet more expensive will do little more than kill online services.
At this rate Netflix will only be for the wealthy, etc.
You say making it more expensive, but it's getting cheaper. Where do you see it costing more?
where is it getting less expensive?
Everywhere that I know of. You pay the same for 100Mb/s today that we used to pay for dialup.
While true, we're NOT comparing to old dialup here, but what was available a year ago at most.
The big ISPs are purposely setting caps that prevent people from replacing TV service with cheaper streaming services.
So, from a company perspective, they're getting a two-fer. Preventing people from replacing needlessly expensive cable/satellite service with a cheaper alternative, and getting a small percentage of people to pay way more. Makes all sorts of sense from a business perspective.
The more and more I read, the more places I see that say, cord cutting it not about cutting costs, it's about freedom of choice.
There is no way to compare. We pay $10 for Netflix instead of $100 for Cable. So you decide if we cut costs.
But your options are also significantly less too. Not saying you care, perhaps cable offered you nothing you wanted. I would like 8 or so channels on cable, I definitely don't want ESPN. Getting rid of ESPN alone could save me $30+ a month, what they charge the cable provider to provide it to me. This is a case where I'm paying for the rich to have something cheaper... lol
Well, I've never seen any cable channel worth having. So to me I'm getting 1000x the value for 10% of the price.
I have to agree with this. Streaming services are the death of traditional cable. Pay for the channels you want and you have them accessible from any device. Done.
But a lot aren't available. For example, HGTV, if you want that, you have to find a streaming service that provides it. Sure PS Vue does and Sling TV, but both of them require the $20+ package to do so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing up for cable, I'm just saying that IF you want some of that content, it's not super cheap.
Toss in the fact that you loose functions like DVR with Sling (though I hear they are working on it) and the DVR feature of PS Vue is kinda crap - ok it's real crap compared to cable or TIVO.
now there's an idea - Tivo for streaming services.
Streaming services are already TiVO'd for you. Needing a DVR for your DVR is pretty weird as a concept.
You have a point, to a point - if my internet goes out, I have access to nothing. If my cable goes out, anything on my DVR is still local and available.
But if you are away from home, your DVR would still be out.
DirectTV and them are starting to offer the ability for you to DVR something from anywhere and also access that content anywhere. But the death of cable is on the horizon. It's not gone yet but in 10 years or so, it'll be gone. Pay-per-view is going to spike for live events, etc. That or file sharing will just continue to grow. Personally, in my house, we have Netflix, Crunchyroll, Rooster Teeth, two Google Play subscriptions (both my gf and myself), which includes YouTube Red, and we're going to be getting Hulu, probably, in 2017. And between that and the jailbroken Fire stick that just came into the house with the new roommate, we have everything we need.
(and will be forever and ever and ever)
