I dumped cable TV, and still have loads to watch

After years of being cable-free, we might be going back to it this fall, when we move. It depends on how much of a price bump it'll be on top of the cable internet we'll already have to pay for.

My wife and I are going to be making this switch with our move next month. We'll still have netflix and amazon through the ps3, but are there any recommendations on a good antenna for picking up OTA (HD) TV?

The type of antenna you'll need depends on the location. Start with antennaweb.org and plug in your new zip code and address. That'll provide a list of the stations available, their direction and distance and the type of antenna you'll need. If all of the stations are relatively close by you can use an indoor multi-directional antenna. If you're not so lucky, you may need to get something a bit bigger. Once you determine they type of antenna you'll need, antennasdirect.com would be my recommended next stop. They have a ton of resources to help you pick the right antenna, and you can contact them with questions and for recommendations as well.

Argh. We may be going back as well. My wife enjoys HGTV and Food Network stuff, which isn't on netflix, amazon streaming, or Hulu plus for tvs/consoles. Unless I can find a way to do this, I'm likely to have cable again.

I'm tempted to purchase a netbook to hook up to the tv and stream those shows off of Hulu that way.

obirano wrote:

Argh. We may be going back as well. My wife enjoys HGTV and Food Network stuff, which isn't on netflix, amazon streaming, or Hulu plus for tvs/consoles. Unless I can find a way to do this, I'm likely to have cable again.

I'm tempted to purchase a netbook to hook up to the tv and stream those shows off of Hulu that way.

There are not great options for those channels. What my wife did do was find a lot of shows via PBS that she likes. It doesn't replace what she lost, but she has some good options. And our PBS station broadcast 4 channels 24 hours a day.

Try things like America's Test Kitchen, including their Cook's Country version, Lidia's, and some others. There are also things like this Old House that ar good. These may not be good enough (although the America's Test Kitchen is as good as anything on the food Network) but they may make giving up cable tolerable. My wife misses those shows, but not when she considers paying $80-$100 a month for them.

Good luck!

Serengeti wrote:

The type of antenna you'll need depends on the location. Start with antennaweb.org and plug in your new zip code and address. That'll provide a list of the stations available, their direction and distance and the type of antenna you'll need. If all of the stations are relatively close by you can use an indoor multi-directional antenna. If you're not so lucky, you may need to get something a bit bigger. Once you determine they type of antenna you'll need, antennasdirect.com would be my recommended next stop. They have a ton of resources to help you pick the right antenna, and you can contact them with questions and for recommendations as well.

Awesome, that's very helpful. Thank you!

Hulu's talking about changing their business model, and requiring proof of a cable connection to stream cable shows.

New York Post wrote:

Hulu, which attracted 31 million unique users in March under a free-for-all model, is taking its first steps to change to a model where viewers will have to prove they are a pay-TV customer to watch their favorite shows, sources tell The Post.

In fact, the move by Hulu toward the new model — called authentication because viewers would have to log in with their cable or satellite TV account number — was behind the move last week by Providence Equity Partners to cash out of Hulu after five years, these sources said.

(more...)

Hulu does not have enough cable shows to warrant paying for it now.

What would the point of Hulu even be at that point? I can't justify the cost as it is.

obirano wrote:

What would the point of Hulu even be at that point? I can't justify the cost as it is.

Free DVR instead of the $10-15 a month the cable company charges you for it?

Right now, I pay for Hulu+. If that happens, I'll be ditching that in a heartbeat. I really, really hate content providers, regardless of industry more and more; get your antiquated distribution systems out of your heads, already.

Stele wrote:
obirano wrote:

What would the point of Hulu even be at that point? I can't justify the cost as it is.

Free DVR instead of the $10-15 a month the cable company charges you for it? :?

If you want much useful, it's still going to cost you 8 a month.

obirano wrote:
Stele wrote:
obirano wrote:

What would the point of Hulu even be at that point? I can't justify the cost as it is.

Free DVR instead of the $10-15 a month the cable company charges you for it? :?

If you want much useful, it's still going to cost you 8 a month.

Well obviously if they require you to login with your cable provider and have access to the same channels you normally do, they'd be insane to still charge $8 on top of that... surely no one would be silly enough to keep paying that.

Stele wrote:
obirano wrote:
Stele wrote:
obirano wrote:

What would the point of Hulu even be at that point? I can't justify the cost as it is.

Free DVR instead of the $10-15 a month the cable company charges you for it? :?

If you want much useful, it's still going to cost you 8 a month.

Well obviously if they require you to login with your cable provider and have access to the same channels you normally do, they'd be insane to still charge $8 on top of that... surely no one would be silly enough to keep paying that. :?

Oh. I'm sure someone would.

I wouldn't blame Hulu for that development. As has been pointed out, that's shooting themselves in the foot. That's the content providers sweating the exodus they're seeing from the archaic "all or nothing" cable TV system, and seeing people get plenty of TV for a much more reasonable price.

It's a matter of time before they put the squeeze on Netflix, Amazon, etc., and try to keep their cable TV customers from bleeding away. The 'old guard' really seems resistant to the digital revolution (RIAA, MPAA, big cable, etc)

The really sad thing is that if they could figure out how to do a'la carte programming right, they could make a mint. I mean, Amazon and iTunes aren't exactly going broke offering TV shows and movies for sale and rent, are they?

BadKen wrote:

The really sad thing is that if they could figure out how to do a'la carte programming right, they could make a mint. I mean, Amazon and iTunes aren't exactly going broke offering TV shows and movies for sale and rent, are they?

They're already making a mint. Cable is about a $100 billion industry. They just want to keep it that way.

I don't know that we have any really strong idea of how the a la carte TV portion of Amazon's and iTunes' business is doing for them. It hasn't done so well that everyone else has immediately dropped their business model to emulate them, or so poorly that they've stopped offering shows that way. That encompasses a pretty wide spectrum of success or lack thereof.

OG_slinger wrote:
BadKen wrote:

The really sad thing is that if they could figure out how to do a'la carte programming right, they could make a mint. I mean, Amazon and iTunes aren't exactly going broke offering TV shows and movies for sale and rent, are they?

They're already making a mint. Cable is about a $100 billion industry. They just want to keep it that way.

Yeah, and since Hulu is just one arm of that industry, they aren't really the ones to look to for innovation.

hbi2k wrote:

I don't know that we have any really strong idea of how the a la carte TV portion of Amazon's and iTunes' business is doing for them. It hasn't done so well that everyone else has immediately dropped their business model to emulate them, or so poorly that they've stopped offering shows that way. That encompasses a pretty wide spectrum of success or lack thereof.

A good question. The problem of course is that Amazon and Apple still have to go through the distributors... who already make their money off of cable. Therefore, they can control prices on VOD in such a way to keep cable cost competitive.

An interesting observation: with current pricing from Amazon, I find I'm saving a *little* versus the cable plan I had before, but not a whole lot. It would be easy to imagine myself actually spending *more* with VOD than I spent on cable, if they added stuff like HBO and charged a premium for it.

It will take a network like AMC to embrace Netflix even more than they have to really turn the tide. When cable companies start dropping them, but AMC decided they can make as much or more by selling their content online, it will signal to others that there is money to be made.

Right now, the threat of getting dropped by DirecTV, Cox, Charter, and Warner is enough to content providers to play ball. It could be something as simple as the major sports finally flipping the bird to cable and selling their content to hometown viewers.

But right now, if MLB sells the rights to watch hometown games, they are going to have to accept far less money from their cable partners. It will be a matter of how much more money they can make. Right now, I don't pay for MLB.TV or the equivalent for the NHL, because they blackout Cardinals and Blues games.

I don't think it would have a major effect on rating right away, as most folks will still watch via cable. But we've already seen the chorus of folks that say that sports are what keeps them on cable. Cable companies will do everything they can to stem that tide.

I'm confident it is coming. But it will not be easy. ESPN via XBL is already providing me a ton of access to games that I can't get without cable. ESPN is a big enough dog that cable companies can't drop them. Yet.

It's going to get uglier before it gets better. And I'm not sure the future actually holds cheaper access. I'd like to see Netflix become a major content provider. But at some point, they are going to need to jump from $10 a month to $30 a month. Then they can afford to be the provider of AMC and other cable networks. I don't believe they can get there with such a small subscription price.

the other way it may come to pass, is that cable networks may start offering their content via online subscriptions as apps though games consoles, Tivo, and other access devices. How much will we be willing to play for just AMC or TNT? Will HBO see the writing on the wall and join? How long before the number of networks we subscribe to equals what we were paying for cable in the first place?

There are just a lot of interested parties, and boiling down who gets paid for what and how much isn't going to be a simple solution. Entities are going to fight for their slice of pie.

Jayhawker wrote:

But right now, if MLB sells the rights to watch hometown games, they are going to have to accept far less money from their cable partners. It will be a matter of how much more money they can make. Right now, I don't pay for MLB.TV or the equivalent for the NHL, because they blackout Cardinals and Blues games.

I don't think it would have a major effect on rating right away, as most folks will still watch via cable. But we've already seen the chorus of folks that say that sports are what keeps them on cable. Cable companies will do everything they can to stem that tide.

I'm curious if anyone's messed around with the sports channels on Roku at all. I've had the UFC channel sitting on there forever but never messed with it because the only fights I ever care about are the ones with my brother-in-law, and every time he has a fight I just wind up going to my sister's house or a sports bar to watch it on cable that I don't have to pay for. (-:

I know it does offer full fights livestreamed for pay-per-view prices, which tend to be pretty hefty but are less terrible if you go in with a bunch of people, which tends to be how I'd want to watch live sports anyway. And I know there's an MLB and an NHL channel on Roku as well. Are these the same sort of deal (full games livestreamed on a pay-per-view basis) or are they just a bunch of highlight reels and commentary and crap, or hamstrung by the need for a cable contract a la HBO Go or something?

Just curious.

Th MLB and NHL subscriptions provide you access to every game by every team for a monthly or set price. The caveat is, you are blacked out from games played by your local team based on the zip code of your IP address.

I could subscribe to MLB.TV, and Cardinals games would be provided about 90 minutes after the conclusion of their game. So if a game ends at 10:30, that's midnight.

XBL has the MLB.TV app, and I can get highlights of every game, plus one random game a day. It also stores every game, by every team, in archives, so you can go back and watch whatever you want.

I think MLB is $200 for the season, which is not bad. The NHL is probably similar.

I will say that MLB's stream is a lot better than ESPN's stream. It looks as nice as watching on cable.

hbi2k wrote:

I know it does offer full fights livestreamed for pay-per-view prices, which tend to be pretty hefty but are less terrible if you go in with a bunch of people, which tends to be how I'd want to watch live sports anyway. And I know there's an MLB and an NHL channel on Roku as well. Are these the same sort of deal (full games livestreamed on a pay-per-view basis) or are they just a bunch of highlight reels and commentary and crap, or hamstrung by the need for a cable contract a la HBO Go or something?

Just curious.

I had a friend look into the MLB channel on Roku because she was such a big fan. Local market games were blacked out just like on TV making the whole thing kind of pointless.

OG_slinger wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

I know it does offer full fights livestreamed for pay-per-view prices, which tend to be pretty hefty but are less terrible if you go in with a bunch of people, which tends to be how I'd want to watch live sports anyway. And I know there's an MLB and an NHL channel on Roku as well. Are these the same sort of deal (full games livestreamed on a pay-per-view basis) or are they just a bunch of highlight reels and commentary and crap, or hamstrung by the need for a cable contract a la HBO Go or something?

Just curious.

I had a friend look into the MLB channel on Roku because she was such a big fan. Local market games were blacked out just like on TV making the whole thing kind of pointless.

Well, MLB and the NHL make money from folks like my brother, who lives in KC. He gets the deal and can watch the Blues and Cardinals. It also makes sense for those fans that watch sports 90% of the time and want to watch teams from around the country.

The service was never meant to provide content to local fans. The teams sell their content to local channels and cable companies for that. The moment they think they can moe more money selling a local package over the interent, and it may be far more than the $200 you see now, they will do it. But right now, Fox Sports and other cable channels would revolt if MLB and the NHL tried to do this.

Jayhawker wrote:

the other way it may come to pass, is that cable networks may start offering their content via online subscriptions as apps though games consoles, Tivo, and other access devices. How much will we be willing to play for just AMC or TNT? Will HBO see the writing on the wall and join? How long before the number of networks we subscribe to equals what we were paying for cable in the first place?

If they start that, then you'd think cable would finally counter with some kind of a la carte package like most of us have wanted for years. Pick 20 channels for X dollars a month, 40 channels for 1.5*X, and so on.

Part of the problem is still the cable channels themselves being owned and tied together and sold together. Want Comedy Central? You have to take the other Viacom channels like MTV. Want TNT/TBS? You have to take CNN too. Want ESPN? You have to take ABC Family.

I wonder sometimes if letting people pick and choose would doom some of the crappier channels out there.

obirano wrote:

Argh. We may be going back as well. My wife enjoys HGTV and Food Network stuff, which isn't on netflix, amazon streaming, or Hulu plus for tvs/consoles. Unless I can find a way to do this, I'm likely to have cable again.

I'm tempted to purchase a netbook to hook up to the tv and stream those shows off of Hulu that way.

The channels we have trouble with would be HGTV, Food Network, AMC (the Walking Dead), Disney Channel (Phineas and Ferb) and NFL football. We are kind of addicted to NFL Red Zone. Our dish network bill is $75 a month with a dvr. Some of the Food Network shows are on iTunes but several are not. NFL has their game pass but I don't know much about it. Does it cover current games?

Jayhawker wrote:

Th MLB and NHL subscriptions provide you access to every game by every team for a monthly or set price. The caveat is, you are blacked out from games played by your local team based on the zip code of your IP address.

I could subscribe to MLB.TV, and Cardinals games would be provided about 90 minutes after the conclusion of their game. So if a game ends at 10:30, that's midnight.

XBL has the MLB.TV app, and I can get highlights of every game, plus one random game a day. It also stores every game, by every team, in archives, so you can go back and watch whatever you want.

I think MLB is $200 for the season, which is not bad. The NHL is probably similar.

I will say that MLB's stream is a lot better than ESPN's stream. It looks as nice as watching on cable.

The price dropped on MLB...a premium subscription is $125 and they throw in the mobile app which is actually pretty cool. But like you said earlier, hometown teams are blacked out. I don't like the yankees or mets so it works out for me.

A good chunk of the channels we personally enjoy couldnt survive in an ala-carte world.. well I guess it would be too risky.. right now a chunk of channels make a living simply because they are carried as part of a bigger package for the Cable Co's etc..

I'm not an especially smart man, so thought I'd ask the question: is there any reason why one wouldn't pick this up, if interested in cutting the cord of cable: http://1saleaday.com/

The product is LG Smart TV Upgrader, on sale today for $50.

Curious if anyone had direct experience with how it worked and if it is, as I believe, basically just a way to turn your tv into an internet machine + some apps- am I right about this? If so, the sale price for the day seems pretty reasonable for $50. I thought about Roku, but this seems it would be less limited (even though it isn't going to have some smaller content like Roku does).

Not sure if I'll pick this up or not, but I do know that I need the opinion of those smarter than myself.

Thanks.

There are a lot of those types of boxes around. Roku is one of the most popular. Western Digital makes one called WDTV. Then, there's the Apple TV. I think the best reason not to pick the LG one up is the popularity of the ones I listed the fact that they have all been doing this type of thing for a lot longer than LG.

I just bought an Apple TV for our bedroom (yesterday) and so far I like it quite a bit. Very simple to use, onboard N wireless, Netflix streaming works very well, and it's easy to connect to iTunes on a computer. I haven't gotten too much experience with it but so far I like it a lot and I think my wife will be able to use it (not so with the xbox I was using). I also thought about a Panasonic BDT220 but decided on the AppleTV. One thing I like about the apple tv is that it is always on. Goes to sleep but wakes up instantly with the touch of a button on the remote.

The only complaint I have (so far) is that audio is only available through HDMI. Our bedroom TV is a dell 24" LCD. I had to swap it with the kids' 19" tv to get audio.