Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

Cutting The Cable...

10K views 64 replies 19 participants last post by  gzblack2 
#1 ·
So, every month I look at my Verizon bill with a bit more contempt. They provide my phone, internet, and TV service.

What irritates me most, I supppose, is the $114/month package I signed up for ends up costing me around $170/month by the time I get my bill as the converter boxes (2) and taxes add up to another $50 a month.

My contract with them expires in November. So, I figure I have until then to do a little research.

Here is my question... has anybody eliminated cable (which includes cable, satellite, fiber optic, etc) completely?

If so, what, if anything, have you replaced it with... how much does it cost you (setup, any recurring fees, etc)... is there anything you'd like to watch but haven't been able to since dropping it... how happy are you that you dropped it?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.
 
#44 ·
Got rid of Comcast and got Directv with the Genie and I was able to cancel my Tivo, so altogether I saved over $100 per month! So far I love the Genie, and I have been a Tivo fan for almost 9 years. Search function is not as nice but I am doing fine with it so far!
 
#45 ·
Found this today, thought I'd share with the group.
The Federal Communications Commission’s new consumer-friendly net neutrality rules just took effect last week, and it looks like our first big lawsuit is already on the verge of being filed. That’s not surprising at all. What is surprising, perhaps, is that the target of the lawsuit isn’t Comcast or Verizon.

According to a new report, Time Warner Cable is about to be slapped with a lawsuit alleging that the ISP charged a video content provider exorbitantly high rates to avoid being throttled.

DON’T MISS: Try to wrap your mind around the incredible future Google is creating

The FCC and its former cable lobbyist chairman Tom Wheeler shocked us all by proposing new net neutrality rules that were surprisingly fair and pro-consumer. Sure, there may be a loophole or two, but the bottom line is that the new rules prevent the three biggest threats to a fair and open Internet: Paid traffic prioritization, data blocking and bandwidth throttling.

Now, it looks like TWC is about to be accused of holding Internet traffic for ransom violating the new rules where at least two of those faux pas are concerned.

San Diego-based Commercial Network Services (CNS) owns and operates SunDiegoLive, which is a website that serves live video streams from webcams. According to a report from The Washington Post, the company is days away from filing a lawsuit alleging that Time Warner Cable held its traffic — and therefor business — hostage by charging unreasonably high rates to avoid being throttled.

Of course, if a webcam site is unable to deliver smooth video feeds, its business will undoubtedly suffer.

CNS boss Barry Bahrami says TWC’s policies are a “blatant violation” of the FCC’s new net neutrality rules, which took effect this past Friday. “This is not traffic we’re pushing to Time Warner; this is traffic that their paying Internet access subscribers are asking for from us,” he told The Post.

Time Warner Cable responded to the story by stating that it has done nothing wrong, and that CNS’s complaint falls under the much-debated topic of peering.

“TWC’s interconnection practices are not only ‘just and reasonable’ as required by the FCC, but consistent with the practices of all major ISPs and well-established industry standards,” TWC said. “We are confident that the FCC will reject any complaint that is premised on the notion that every edge provider around the globe is entitled to enter into a settlement-free peering arrangement.”
 
#48 ·
It's a false question as I don't subscribe to the premise that what you're asking exists without government force.

As I said previously on this subject, the restricted choices we have in this market are purely a function of government creating those restrictions.

But then, I also recognize that every "big business" that exists in this country does so because "big government" put them in that position to begin with. And, if somebody like Elizabeth Warren or even Obama and their "you didn't build that" mentality were strictly aimed at big business, I would probably agree with them.
 
#50 ·
You are obviously not familiar with the marker entry barriers in utilities. There is a reason the government got involved in the first place. Monopolies would exist unchecked otherwise. Joe Smith cannot start a utility business on his own. The costs to lay the infrastructure to even start the business create a barrier to market entry. Either the government needs to own the infrastructure and let companies pay a fee to utilize it (inefficient) or they need to find other ways to manage competition and protect the consumers.
 
#49 ·
We got rid of DISH about 10 years ago. Same week I disconnected, Charter offers me 1 full year basic service to go with my internet service; free install, no charge for 12 months. Seemed like a no-brainer. Quality of the signal was not nearly as good as DISH (65" set) and we rarely watched, so after the 12 months, I told them to shut it off.

I put an antenna up inside our attic and we get the basic networks, but still rarely watch anything. (Nielson's added a box near the TV that gathers almost no data, so we aren't much help with their ratings :evil6: ) Way too many commercial breaks to keep my interest, and I rarely check out what's on PBS.
 
#51 ·
We've had this discussion before. The assertion that government intervention was undertaken to increase our options was wrong then. It's wrong now.

The federal government beginning to "manage competition" over a century ago now with this industry is what created the condition you are referring to to begin with.

As I said, trace back every threat of a corporate monopoly back far enough and you'll find a government action that created the threat to begin with.
 
#52 ·
Your information is wrong.

1) It wasn't done initially to create competition. It was done to prevent a monopolistic stranglehold on necessary infrastructure.

2) The condition we have now (with regard to telecom) was created when a) Bell was broken up (by Reagan) and b) by de-regulation of the industry (again, by Reagan.)
 
#53 ·
Your information is wrong.

1) It wasn't done initially to create competition. It was done to prevent a monopolistic stranglehold on necessary infrastructure.
If an action does not create competition, then it does nothing to eliminate a monopoly. The former is a necessary component of the latter.


2) The condition we have now (with regard to telecom) was created when a) Bell was broken up (by Reagan) and b) by de-regulation of the industry (again, by Reagan.)
I often wonder just how out of touch one has to be to actually believe that anything even remotely resembling a utility company in this country has ever come even close to being de-regulated.

But, then, I realize that people actually believe that the energy sector in California was deregulated and that doing so led to rolling blackouts. So, clearly, it's pervasive.
 
#56 ·
Are you really that dense? It is not impossible to create infrastructure. It is cost prohibitive for almost all competition out there though. Of course the company bringing in all the money can afford the infrastructure. Explain to me how a startup company creates new infrastructure though? What lender is going to take the risk to give them enough money to cover it? Getting into the utility business is not like opening up a store downtown. The higher the barriers to market entry are, the less competition is possible. Monopolies and oligopolies are a quick way to throttle the free market and put consumers at the mercy of companies instead of the consumer having control.
 
#57 ·
And yet, every cable company in the country did it. Then, suddenly, no others could.

Every cell phone company in the country did it. Now, we want to start restricting their ability to charge tiered access to data plans (which is where most companies make their money). Pretty much guaranteeing that the players in the game now will be the only players in the game for the foreseeable future.

When you got to the point that you started to believe that government does ANYTHING to help either the consumer or the competitor is beyond me, when it has demonstrably done the exact opposite for over the last 100 years. And, it shouldn't take much for you to understand that.

For every claim they make to want to prohibit monopolies, consumers have ONE traditional telco they can choose from. ONE cable company they can choose from. And, their high speed data access are pretty much restricted to those as well.

So, what monopolies have they really prohibited? And, with companies like Comcast raising their rates pretty much constantly, they obviously haven't done a whole lot about price gouging, either.

The federal government has shown multiple ways over the last several decades that they have an intent to control all forms of communications and media. The more players in that game the less control is possible.

Which pretty much puts it right in line with every other pillar of society. Politics. Academia. Media. Law.

But, you keep believing that we here at government house are your friend and we're here to help you. Even though nothing we have ever done has ever actually done it.
 
#59 ·
:::shrug:::

Like I said. Nothing that government has ever professed to be trying to prevent or fix by further regulating anything has ever prevented or fixed any of it.

So, you either believe in the gross incompetence of government or that preventing or fixing it was never the intent to begin with.

I'm good with either one.

As far as whether or not most people take me seriously? Given that most people actually believe that a country that no longer ranks in the top 10 of free market economies still represents one (or that one has even existed for the last century, for that matter), you'll have to forgive me if that doesn't really bother me all that much.
 
#60 ·
I've never had cable or satellite TV since starting out on my own as a senior in high school in the late 90's. For several years, we've used a good digital antenna to get all of the local stations and I use the xbox360 to stream Netflix and my wife uses hulu a fair amount. I'm thinking about getting a Roku, chromecast, or something similar. Can anyone give personal experience on their streaming devices? This may be something I can buy my wife as a Christmas present so I'll be looking to buy soon.
 
#61 ·
Not personally. And, you already have a Netflix account. Which is the only thing I've been exposed to through friends.

It is going to be interesting where all of this goes, with more and more shows moving toward streaming services like Netflix and even Amazon.

Supposedly, even CBS is going to be doing some streaming only shows. Talk that the new Star Trek series will be streaming only. Not sure how that will work out, though.
 
#62 ·
We use the embedded streaming apps in our LG TV in the living room and a Roku in the bedroom. I just set up a spare PC with a 2TB hard drive and Plex Media Server, moved all my "media" files over to it, and now I can stream all my downloaded movies/TV to any tablet or TV that runs the Plex app.
 
#63 ·
This thread is back from the dead!



Hanzo told me to buy this ($40) so I got one and hooked it to the living room TV.

On his TV he uses an app for a small fee but you get less or no ads and better quality viewing. Plus he was able to get a program guide app so you can see what is playing at what times.

For my TV he added a free app for international TV channels and he added a free app for watching movies. I may buy another one for the bedroom TV.

I plan on installing an outside antenna on a flagpole and connect that to the kitchen/family room TV so I can get the local TV stations.

Then I can eliminate the cable and just pay for internet service.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top