Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       02-19-2014, 7:02 PM Reply   
Anybody have any suggestions on what sites to use for streaming shows. I am probably more concerned about being able to stream shows more so than movies. I know there are things like Hulu, netflix, etc...

I don't mind paying $10/month or so but don't want to have to stack a bunch of those up. I just want to find the best option.
Old    J (Jmorlan)      Join Date: May 2013       02-19-2014, 7:06 PM Reply   
if you have amazon prime, they have all kinds of jargon for streaming, movies, shows, etc. I have prime, but have never used that feature. heard good things about it though.
netflix, hulu, and a few others, let me remember the other ones and ill post those too

But, I have direct Tv, with 2 boxes, one being the genie, and their middle of the road package, and I paid $44/mo the first year, and just this month for my second year of my agreement, and its only $54, went up $10/month. I can still downgrade the package if needed, but im pretty satisfied. 50 bucks a month for all the channels/features I have is not bad imo

Last edited by Jmorlan; 02-19-2014 at 7:09 PM.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       02-19-2014, 8:07 PM Reply   
I just found out I can log into my parents xfinity/comcast account and watch pretty much anything I would watch, at least while there are no sports going on I care about, for free. Not sure why I didn't get rid of cable sooner. I like saving almost $100/month.
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       02-19-2014, 8:25 PM Reply   
Just cancelled mine today too! $100 a month savings should be pretty nice. We use netflix for streaming, but their streaming availability is fairly limited. Looking into hulu plus, but I'm not super worried about it. I am actually hoping to not care so much about the tv soon. All my neighbors have the sports packages, so I can always go that route. We might buy the "antennae" from best buy for like $60 just to get the local channels for when my parents visit.
I'm actually pretty excited about ditching cable. Mostly crap on tv nowadays anyways.
Old    J (Jmorlan)      Join Date: May 2013       02-19-2014, 8:26 PM Reply   
cable is wayyy to expensive. I have found that with satellite I can be comfortable at around 50/mo and that is worth it to me. My previous house I could not get a dish and I was paying $119 for a ****ty cable service.
Now I am around 75/mo total for cable and 25mb internet
Old    Mitch (wakemitch)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-19-2014, 9:36 PM Reply   
Ive been without cable for a couple of months. We have an Apple TV. Hulu is a must have. It has current shows as well as old shows and movies. I also subscribe to Netflix. I use my parents ATT account info to get the ESPN app on apple tv.

But I really miss sports. I can only watch sports on ESPN or TNT using my parents cable info, and there is no way to watch basketball, baseball, or hockey without going to a friends or a sports bar. I miss coming home and watching the Warriors games.

As I was typing this I looked up NBA League Pass. I can get it for $65 (I get to choose 5 teams) for computer and apple TV. I'm about to do it because I'm tired of missing games.

Last edited by wakemitch; 02-19-2014 at 9:37 PM. Reason: edit
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-20-2014, 9:22 AM Reply   
I use Netflix and free Hulu. Cable definitely wasn't worth it for me. I also just installed an antenna 2 weeks ago and get about 40 english speaking stations. The NBC HD OTA for the Olympics is amazingly detailed. Should have got an antenna sooner.
Old    Hey, You scratched my anchor! (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-20-2014, 10:11 AM Reply   
I think antenna is better than many cable or sat feed. And free is priced right. Rabbit ears will work.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       02-20-2014, 11:59 AM Reply   
Netflix Info...
http://bgr.com/2014/02/19/why-is-net...treaming-slow/
Old    August (augie_09)      Join Date: Mar 2011       02-20-2014, 12:34 PM Reply   
going on 2nd year of cable free.

$17 - netflix and hulu. amazon is good to, has lots of the same movies as netflix, but a few better ones also.
$0 - HD antenna, get all the local games and morning/nightly news, abc/fox/nbc.
occasionally we want a new movie, so just pay vudu rental fee, 4.99 or 3.99. It would be really nice if after I rent a movie, I have option to buy it with my rental cost applied to purchase.

in next year google fiber should be to our neighborhood. 5MB free, or 1GB for $70/month. hmmm...GB it is.
Old    RileyBangerter (steezyshots)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-20-2014, 5:03 PM Reply   
+1 for Amazon Prime
Old    Surf Addict (Desi) (phathom)      Join Date: Jun 2013       02-23-2014, 12:23 PM Reply   
Is it really "cord cutting" when some of you are using mommy and daddy's cable account logins? You may be canceling your cable bill, but you might try another kind of "cord cutting" like the umbilical cord and pay for your own stuff you want. If your still too young and live at home, that's one thing. Otherwise, grow up.

Hulu is owned 32% by Comcast. Out of every $1 spent, they get ~1/3 of it. If you opt out of their cable service to go to a streaming service, they're still making money. I think at a possibly higher profit margin as well since there is less overhead to a streaming service versus cable.

Really though, as far as options, Netflix is good, I used to have it for years, but canceled when they split the services and doubled the price as I used both streaming and DVD delivery equally and wasn't about to pay double for the same service overnight.
I streamed that on my 360 and consistently had good quality and very little buffer issues.

I haven't done hulu plus, but I hear from friends it has a lot more tv shows and is more current on those than Netflix which typically has them after the boxed set for the season comes out.

I think if you wanted more tv shows I'd do Hulu, and if you wanted more movies I'd do Netflix.
Old    Mitch (wakemitch)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-23-2014, 3:32 PM Reply   
I take back what I said about NBA League Pass. You CANNOT get local games. I'm definitely an idiot and lost money on that.
I'm going to try a vpn service to use a remote IP address though. Hopefully I can get it to work.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       02-24-2014, 9:52 AM Reply   
I am also motivated to save money and pay comcast less so I cancelled all but my internet connection.

I get broadcast off the air in stunning quality and stream to my smart TV netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.

For broadcast, I installed this guy aimed at the broadcast antenna in the Lodi area.
Attached Images
 
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       02-24-2014, 9:59 AM Reply   
The internet will tell you where the broadcast options are located...

For example...
Attached Images
  
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       02-24-2014, 10:58 AM Reply   
After the recent net neutrality failure you may have to pay extra for streaming as well. Verizon sued the FCC to allow them as well as Comcast and others to control what you are allowed to access when using their internet service. It won't be long before you have to upgrade to the 300 per month internet in order to get access to sites that stream movies and television. Without government control OR competition as there are only a couple of high speed internet providers, these greedy companies will make sure to find a way for you to pay more than ever for less than ever. Support net neutrality or you'll feel it in your wallet.
Old    Surf Addict (Desi) (phathom)      Join Date: Jun 2013       02-24-2014, 1:01 PM Reply   
I couldn't agree more Eric. The net needs to stay open and free. No one should be able to control what you can or can't view based on who your provider is or what you pay for. Countries like China and North Korea do that stuff. We can't let it happen here.
Old    Darrin (Cabledog)      Join Date: Dec 2013       02-24-2014, 1:32 PM Reply   
Netflix announced a deal with Comcast today to pay them not to slow down their downloads. Netflix prices are expected to rise to compensate for these costs. Paying the company that owns a third of you. Hmmmm. Good business if you are the company. Not so much for the consumer. You can also expect your local broadband provider will be charging you more too in the near future as Eric mentions with the net neutrality failure. (The feds siding with a company over the tax payers. Shocker!! ) The problem with the service providers Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc is they are not classifed as a utility like the power, gas and true (non- VOIP) phone companies are. This means that they fall outside much of the regulation that the "utility" companys have to abide by. They will fight hard to avoid this classification.
Old    Surf Addict (Desi) (phathom)      Join Date: Jun 2013       02-24-2014, 2:10 PM Reply   
Comcast owns a third of Hulu, not Netflix.
Also they are classified as a utility if they provide phone service and have to follow the same FCC regs.
Old    A-dub (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       02-24-2014, 3:16 PM Reply   
When will a company come out with a la carte channel packages, or pay per channel options? I only need a few channels when it comes down to it, and its a simple supply and demand thinning of the abundance of tv channels
Old    Surf Addict (Desi) (phathom)      Join Date: Jun 2013       02-24-2014, 3:49 PM Reply   
There is a reason no one will come out with A La Carte channels. It will cost you too much to get them.
As it sits right now, the cable companies provide a package with say 100 channels for say $50/mo.
Out of those 100 channels, the average subscriber watches about 15 of them.
The subscriber doesn't want to pay for 85 channels they don't watch. Makes sense, don't pay for what you don't need.
Here's why it doesn't work like that.

The company who owns each channel sells it for a certain price to stay profitable.
The channel owner makes money from advertisers that pay that channel to show their ads.
The advertisers pay the channel owner based on how many subscribers will get that channel and potentially see their ad.
The channel owner sells the broadcasting rights to the cable company on a sliding scale. If so many subscribers have that channel, then that is their potential customer base that they get to tell their advertisers has the channel and that effects how much the advertiser will pay the channel owner.
Now that channel owner probably owns multiple channels, some that are highly watched and others that might get watched a lot less. They still need those channels carried to satisfy their advertisers.
The channel owner will sometimes reduce the price on a channel everyone wants to watch (ESPN,AMC,MTV,Nick,TBS, etc) or even pay the cable company in addition, if they carry one of the less desirable channels (HSN, The Weather Channel, Style, etc)
This helps reduce the cost on the cable company to purchase those channels. This in turn lowers the bill. The cable company is able to negotiate those prices by saying, "We will carry x,y,z, in our basic package. Our basic package has x number subscribers, so you have x number of potential customers."
They get better pricing on channels people want by carrying channels people don't necessarily want in the same packages.

If it was a la carte, the whole bargaining chip goes away and they have to say, "We have x number of people that want to order your channel, no even less people want that other channel so we aren't going to carry it."
This makes the channel owner tell the advertisers, "We have x number of people who watch your channel, not potential people, just a hard number"
The advertiser tells the channel owner, "Since you have x number of potential customers, which is a lot lower, we will pay you a lot less to advertise our products."
This makes the channel owner raise costs to the cable company since they are not getting their money from advertisers anymore and have to find a way to cover their expenses somewhere.
The cable company has to charge higher amounts to the customers who want those channels and in turn have less people buying those channels.

I have seen actual pricing for some of these channels from some of the networks if they were to go to a la carte. Right now if you wanted that $50/mo plan for 100 channels. It would include a lot of your favorites, ESPN, Comedy Central, TBS, AMC, Etc. A lot of good channels, but also a lot of crap.
If you wanted to cut out the crap and get just the good channels you want the prices would be ridiculously high.
The price for ESPN alone as a la carte is $35 by itself, ESPN 2 is $15. If you wanted Discovery channel, which normally comes in the basic of all basic packages, that is $8. Add any of the other channels in and by the time you have about 5-6 channels your cable bill is higher than what it was when you were getting 100 channels.

The whole thing comes down to supply and demand and potential sales for companies. The reason premium channels like HBO cost so much is because there are no ads, only ads about other shows on channels you already pay for.

TLDR: There will be no a la carte because a small package of your handpicked channels will cost significantly more than a package you can get now that includes more channels.
Old    A-dub (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       02-24-2014, 4:30 PM Reply   
Totally understand, thanks for the explanation. Still think the advertisers would figure out a way to make it possible, and guarantee their money was being used as best it could to reach an actual customer, rather than potential, just like social media has given market research information precise quantitative information.
Old    Surf Addict (Desi) (phathom)      Join Date: Jun 2013       02-24-2014, 4:39 PM Reply   
Exactly. I totally think there should be done thinning of the hard as far as channels, advertisers, packages, etc.
If they spent their money smarter, we wouldn't have so much fluff. But I think the channel owners like it that way.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us