Jump to content
IGNORED

Cutting the Cord…


turtleback

Recommended Posts

I believe we will see a lot more of this over the next few years.  With the reliability and speeds of internet access today, traditional "watch on a schedule" television is becoming obsolete.  My family and I "cut the cable cord" in October 2011 and haven't looked back.  Netflix type programming will take over the market soon.  ESPN and Disney are well aware of this which is why they made their content available well before most anyone else.

The NFL voted to suspend regional blackouts for the upcoming season.  My guess is, most everyone will soon.  It is a copycat business.

Really it has been the ABC, NBC, CBS that have spearheaded the move to watching online video for full TV episodes. They usually offer the episode the day after or a week after airtime.

Then you got Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon really pushing the online video.

I think ESPN is using SlingTV has a test to see how much viewership they get off of online video watching. In the end it might save them money because they don't have to broadcast the same stuff over and over again during the day when no one is really watching.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I believe we will see a lot more of this over the next few years.  With the reliability and speeds of internet access today, traditional "watch on a schedule" television is becoming obsolete.  My family and I "cut the cable cord" in October 2011 and haven't looked back.  Netflix type programming will take over the market soon.  ESPN and Disney are well aware of this which is why they made their content available well before most anyone else. The NFL voted to suspend regional blackouts for the upcoming season.  My guess is, most everyone will soon.  It is a copycat business.

Yes, but that's different. The NFL blacked out regional broadcasts when the games were not sold out. Cord cutters rely on alternative providers (mlb tv, nbvsports app, etc.), and those still get blacked out when the game is on local cable. Last nights game was on csn locally so nbcsports put something else on tv and wouldn't let me watch the game on their app because of the local coverage. [quote name="saevel25" url="/t/78230/cutting-the-cord/30#post_1134787"]Sounds like ESPN is suing Verizon for offering stripped down Custom TV plan. Were you get a base plan, then you can switch out monthly other add on bundles. Somehow ESPN thinks what ever they are offering is violating their contract.  [/quote] I think it's because everyone that has a basic package gets espn, and espn gets paid $6 per subscriber. So if Verizon makes espn an extra, fewer people will subscribe. They claim their contract with Verizon requires them to be part of the basic package.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Really it has been the ABC, NBC, CBS that have spearheaded the move to watching online video for full TV episodes. They usually offer the episode the day after or a week after airtime.

Then you got Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon really pushing the online video.

I think ESPN is using SlingTV has a test to see how much viewership they get off of online video watching. In the end it might save them money because they don't have to broadcast the same stuff over and over again during the day when no one is really watching.

Very true, ABC, NBC, CBS and others were at the forefront but I believe they didn't have much of a choice with the soaring popularity of Netflix.

ESPN was, if I remember correctly, the first sports programmer to offer anything of value content wise to a streaming consumer.  CBS Sports, SEC Network and ACC Digital offered apps early on but they have never offered anything in terms of quality content.

SlingTV is interesting but as long as I can get the same content without a subscription, I will continue down that path.  I agree that ESPN, HBO and others are gauging the market for streamed content.  Television viewing may look very different within the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I wasn't very clear, dsc.  When I said "I believe we will see a lot more of this", I meant cable providers trying to create new revenue streams.  By requiring additional fees for ESPN content, Verizon is hoping to increase revenue.  This mindset is the basis for the "cord cutting" movement over the past few years.  Cable and satellite providers have gouged the pockets of consumers for 30 years.

That is coming to an end.

Now, ISP's will figure out ways to gouge consumers over the next few decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I wasn't very clear, dsc.  When I said "I believe we will see a lot more of this", I meant cable providers trying to create new revenue streams.  By requiring additional fees for ESPN content, Verizon is hoping to increase revenue.  This mindset is the basis for the "cord cutting" movement over the past few years.  Cable and satellite providers have gouged the pockets of consumers for 30 years.

That is coming to an end.

Now, ISP's will figure out ways to gouge consumers over the next few decades.


Sure, I agree completely.  I wonder how it will end up though--will the cable providers be able to charge more for ESPN when ESPN starts offering its content directly via the internet?  I mean, here we have ESPN saying they're going to sell their content direct to consumers, which hurts Verizon's ability to maintain subscribes, but then ESPN sues when Verizon makes ESPN an extra because it will cost ESPN subscribers.  I think we have the content providers learning that large chunks of today's population can be reached without the cable companies, and the cable companies are essentially trying to compete with the content providers--who are their clients, or vendors--by offering more al a carte service.  It creates an unusual dynamic.

I don't think cord cutting will save much money in the future.  We'll all just end up paying $8 for each of the 15 channels we want instead of paying $120 for the 150 channels the cable companies bundle together.

But maybe that will change in the long long run, as internet tv will also make it easier for competition to sprout up since they won't need to convince the cable companies to carry their programming.

Dan

:tmade: R11s 10.5*, Adila RIP Phenom 60g Stiff
:ping: G20 3W
:callaway: Diablo 3H
:ping:
i20 4-U, KBS Tour Stiff
:vokey: Vokey SM4 54.14 
:vokey: Vokey :) 58.11

:scotty_cameron: Newport 2
:sunmountain: Four 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Sure, I agree completely.  I wonder how it will end up though--will the cable providers be able to charge more for ESPN when ESPN starts offering its content directly via the internet?  I mean, here we have ESPN saying they're going to sell their content direct to consumers, which hurts Verizon's ability to maintain subscribes, but then ESPN sues when Verizon makes ESPN an extra because it will cost ESPN subscribers.  I think we have the content providers learning that large chunks of today's population can be reached without the cable companies, and the cable companies are essentially trying to compete with the content providers--who are their clients, or vendors--by offering more al a carte service.  It creates an unusual dynamic.

I don't think cord cutting will save much money in the future.  We'll all just end up paying $8 for each of the 15 channels we want instead of paying $120 for the 150 channels the cable companies bundle together.

But maybe that will change in the long long run, as internet tv will also make it easier for competition to sprout up since they won't need to convince the cable companies to carry their programming.

Absolutely!  But I will take full advantage of it while I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Anyone out there cut the cord?  Anyone solved the live sports problem?

I have had nothing but internet at home for about six years now. I stream Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime all through my game console, or tablet when I'm out and about. I'm an avid Bears fan living in Bengals and Browns country, and have both the Masters and Wimbledon marked off on my calendar every year, because that's when the world stops. With a little hunting, you can live stream just about any sporting event worldwide.

I spend under $70 a month for everything when just the basic TWC package somehow always came out to about $110/mo after random fees and fine print, more if I wanted Golf Channel or anything else that might be interesting to me. I do miss something every now and then or have to pay a one-time fee to stream (like the Olympics at 4AM when NBC is showing Shark vacuum informercials instead of the volleyball finals. Not that I'm still bitter or anything), but I still get to watch almost everything I want without a hitch.

I don't think cord cutting will save much money in the future.  We'll all just end up paying $8 for each of the 15 channels we want instead of paying $120 for the 150 channels the cable companies bundle together.

Of course, people like me will probably lead to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have had nothing but internet at home for about six years now. I stream Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime all through my game console, or tablet when I'm out and about. I'm an avid Bears fan living in Bengals and Browns country, and have both the Masters and Wimbledon marked off on my calendar every year, because that's when the world stops. With a little hunting, you can live stream just about any sporting event worldwide.

I spend under $70 a month for everything when just the basic TWC package somehow always came out to about $110/mo after random fees and fine print, more if I wanted Golf Channel or anything else that might be interesting to me. I do miss something every now and then or have to pay a one-time fee to stream (like the Olympics at 4AM when NBC is showing Shark vacuum informercials instead of the volleyball finals. Not that I'm still bitter or anything), but I still get to watch almost everything I want without a hitch.

Of course, people like me will probably lead to this.

I can't agree with this more.  I have been streaming content since October 2011 with no cable or satellite subscription.  I pay a total of $63.22 for internet, Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime.  My ISP offers 60-105 MBPS so streaming picture quality and buffering are not an issue.  With some effort, I have been able to watch any sporting event worldwide that I have attempted to watch.  Experience in locating various sporting events to stream cuts down the time and effort required.  You tend to get the hang of what to look for and how to stream certain content.  Apps like Nowhere.tv make the effort easier as well.  Its not point the remote and click but its not difficult.

I also agree that people like us will cause an exponential rise it cost of "cutting the cord" someday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 1 month later...
  • Moderator

Yahoo to livestream Bills-Jaguars October game in London, free. Sign of things to come?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495384/article/nfl-and-yahoo-partner-to-deliver-firstever-global-live-stream

Steve

Kill slow play. Allow walking. Reduce ineffective golf instruction. Use environmentally friendly course maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yahoo to livestream Bills-Jaguars October game in London, free. Sign of things to come? [URL=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495384/article/nfl-and-yahoo-partner-to-deliver-firstever-global-live-stream]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000495384/article/nfl-and-yahoo-partner-to-deliver-firstever-global-live-stream[/URL]

Yes, it's going to happen in October. So I guess that's things to come.

-- Michael | My swing! 

"You think you're Jim Furyk. That's why your phone is never charged." - message from my mother

Driver:  Titleist 915D2.  4-wood:  Titleist 917F2.  Titleist TS2 19 degree hybrid.  Another hybrid in here too.  Irons 5-U, Ping G400.  Wedges negotiable (currently 54 degree Cleveland, 58 degree Titleist) Edel putter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yahoo to livestream Bills-Jaguars October game in London, free. Sign of things to come?

I can only see it becoming more prevalent if the NFL (and Yahoo) somehow makes money off the deal.  If they were to enter into a partnership with Yahoo to stream NFL games on a regular basis, that cost would somehow be passed on to the consumer because Yahoo isn't going to do it purely out of the goodness of their hearts.  Networks pay billions of dollars to broadcast NFL games (Fox $4.27B, CBS $3.73B, NBC $3.6B and ESPN $8.8B, all according to Wikipedia).  Rights to NFL broadcasts are not only the most expensive of any American sport, they're the most expensive of any American entertainment property, period.  I could easily see any/all the above networks screaming bloody murder about the NFL granting licensing rights to Yahoo, and I can't see Yahoo paying the price the NFL would want in the first place.  Purely IMO, but no way Yahoo (or any other online source) would do it without some kind of a subscription/pay per view model in place.

Mac

WITB:
Driver: Ping G30 (12*)
FW:  Ping K15 (3W, 5W)
Hybrids: Ping K15 (3H, 5H)
Irons: Ping K15 (6-UW)

Wedges: Cleveland 588 RTX CB (54*, 58*)

Putter: Ping Scottsdale w/ SS Slim 3.0

Ball: Bridgestone e6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixcat View Post

The NFL voted to suspend regional blackouts for the upcoming season.  My guess is, most everyone will soon.  It is a copycat business.

Yes, the FCC in September removed the regulations which required some of those blackouts.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-eliminates-sports-blackout-rules

Quote:

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today repealed its sports blackout rules, which prohibited cable and satellite operators from airing any sports event that had been blacked out on a local broadcast station. The action removes Commission protection of the NFL’s current private blackout policy, which requires local broadcast stations to black out a game if a team does not sell a certain percentage of tickets to the game at least 72 hours prior to the game.

It was an outdated rule, from days when most sports revenues were from ticket sales, not broadcast, and when many people also didn't have access to cable broadcasts.  Blackouts will still occur though for contractual reasons:

Quote:

Today’s action may not eliminate all sports blackouts, because the NFL may choose to continue its private blackout policy. However, the NFL will no longer be entitled to the protection of the Commission’s sports blackout rules. Instead, the NFL must rely on the same avenues available to other

entities that wish to protect their distribution rights in the private marketplace.

I think you will continue to see some blackouts when something is actually being broadcast on a local network.  I would think local TV contracts are a big part of why MLB.tv for instance blacks out local games. But hopefully we will see less blackouts where something isn't available at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have Verizon FIOS and it has great quality.   However,   I am paying for hundreds and hundreds of channels .  We watch maybe at the most 15-30 channels consistently.   That includes local news, live sports, and channels we are interested in , like cooking,  crime, National Geographic, history.     The only show we watch from the big 3 is Blue Bloods.    I could give a d*mn about the shopping, Spanish,  Moslem,   alternative life styles,  and reality shows.     It really gets under my skin  that we don't pay for what we want instead of bundled packages that are mostly fluff.     I have been thinking dropping cable just because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 1 month later...
I have Verizon FIOS and it has great quality.   However,   I am paying for hundreds and hundreds of channels .  We watch maybe at the most 15-30 channels consistently.   That includes local news, live sports, and channels we are interested in , like cooking,  crime, National Geographic, history.     The only show we watch from the big 3 is Blue Bloods.    I could give a d*mn about the shopping, Spanish,  Moslem,   alternative life styles,  and reality shows.     It really gets under my skin  that we don't pay for what we want instead of bundled packages that are mostly fluff.     I have been thinking dropping cable just because of this.

I saw an ad for verizon starting the pay for what you want but I haven't looked into it yet to see if it was worth it. Has anyone else?

-Jerry

Driver: Titleist 913 D3 (9.5 degree) – Aldila RIP 60-2.9-Stiff; Callaway Mini-Driver Kura Kage 60g shaft - 12 degree Hybrids: Callway X2 Hot Pro - 16 degree & 23 degree – Pro-Shaft; Callway X2 Hot – 5H & 6H Irons: Titleist 714 AP2 7 thru AW with S300 Dynamic Gold Wedges: Titleist Vokey GW (54 degree), Callaway MackDaddy PM Grind SW (58 degree) Putter: Ping Cadence TR Ketsch Heavy Balls: Titleist Pro V1x & Snell MyTourBall

"Golf is the closest game to the game we call life. You get bad breaks from good shots; you get good breaks from bad shots but you have to play the ball where it lies."- Bobby Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I have Verizon FIOS and it has great quality.   However,   I am paying for hundreds and hundreds of channels .  We watch maybe at the most 15-30 channels consistently.   That includes local news, live sports, and channels we are interested in , like cooking,  crime, National Geographic, history.     The only show we watch from the big 3 is Blue Bloods.    I could give a d*mn about the shopping, Spanish,  Moslem,   alternative life styles,  and reality shows.     It really gets under my skin  that we don't pay for what we want instead of bundled packages that are mostly fluff.     I have been thinking dropping cable just because of this.

It's more complex than that though. You pay for channels you don't watch, but other people are paying for channels you do watch (someone who doesn't watch ESPN, for example). I don't know if it would entirely even out if TV had an a la carte model, but it's not as simple as saying "I'm not watching Unavision, take that carrier charge off my bill." I've seen estimates that if only people who watched ESPN paid for it, they'd be paying $50 a month. ESPN would not survive charging $50 a month. They'd have to cut back, broadcast fewer live sports, etc. The entire pro sports model is built on those national coverage deals. You can say it's not exactly competitive business practices (there are literally hundreds of networks that are propped by carriage fees that would die without those carriage fees), but it's not as simple as it seems.

  • Upvote 2

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I've seen estimates that if only people who watched ESPN paid for it, they'd be paying $50 a month. ESPN would not survive charging $50 a month. They'd have to cut back, broadcast fewer live sports, etc. The entire pro sports model is built on those national coverage deals.

Keep a close eye on SlingTV, I believe it is the first step to dismantling the current cable/dish model. It is a step toward a la carte. ESPN is in the package with a dozen or so other channels and the whole things costs $20 flat per month. If the only reason you are keeping cable is for ESPN you should give Sling a look.

- Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 2 weeks later...

So my ComCast equipment is sitting on the coffee table and I will be bringing it back to them today, at which time my cord is officially cut.

I've been using the streaming capability of my Sony blu-ray player to access streaming but now am considering alternatives.

Roku is obviously on my scope as is the Apple TV.  But the real feature I want and am looking for is a streaming device with built in browser capabilities, so that it would be possible to navigate to a web page that has streaming video and stream it directly.  I know that some devices can do something like this by casting what is on a computer of smartphone to the TV, but I am looking for something that cuts out the computer/phone middle man and streams directly.

Does anyone know of a streaming device with such a capability (and again, I am not looking for "casting" solutions but a true native solution).

Thanks.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

@turtleback

Congrats on cutting the cord.

There are many ways, assuming you do not have a smart TV.

Check out - http://www.labnol.org/internet/watch-internet-videos-on-tv/12177/

And - http://www.tested.com/tech/set-top-boxes/458922-best-wireless-hdmi-video-transmitter-today/

Navigating on the TV Website is better using a wireless keyboard.

Some components may not support Adobe Flash Player.

Also, your TV must have HDMI imput for the various components to connect.

I personally like casting my tablet. Some apps will play to TV through DLNA devices.

Go to dlna.org or search TV digital living network alliance.

Club Rat

Johnny Rocket - Let's Rock and Roll and play some golf !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • I did read the fine print tonight. It said replace with “similar features & function”.  8 yeas ago my purchase had features that today are available on the lower end models and the current version of my model has more “bells & whistles” than what I got 8 years ago.  So I am thinking they honored the agreement and I can’t argue the offer. since getting a credit for the full purchase price all I am really out over the past 8 years was the cost of the extended warranty, which was less than a low end  treadmill would have cost me. now the question is which model to replace with.  I’ll stay with Nordic Track or I forfeit the $1,463 credit so I will get Nordic Track.  And they honored the warranty and were not hard to work with which is a plus.
    • Generally speaking, extended warranties are a terrible deal and should almost always be avoided. They are a huge profit center for the companies that offer them, which should tell you almost everything you need to know about how much value most consumers get when purchasing them.  This is correct, and the old adage applies - only buy insurance when you can't afford the loss. This usually doesn't apply to most consumer goods.  To your second question, no I don't believe the offer is fair. They are replacing it, but it is not being replaced at "no cost to you". Since the amount being disputed (over $500) is non-trivial, I would probably push the issue. Don't waste your time on the phone with a customer service agent or a supervisor. They have probably given you all they have the authority to do. Rather, I would look at the terms of your agreement and specifically legal disputes. The odds are you probably agreed to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute. The agreement will outline what steps need to be followed, but it will probably look something like this.  1. Mail the Nordic Track legal department outlining your dispute and indicate you are not satisfied with the resolution offered.  2. Open up a case with the AAA (American Arbitration Association), along with the required documentation. 3. Wait about 4-5 weeks for a case to be opened - at which point someone from Nordic Track's legal department will offer to give you the new model at no cost to you.  They certainly don't want to spend the time and energy to fight you over $500. 4. Enjoy your new Nordic Track at no cost to you. I recently entered binding arbitration against a fairly large and well known company that screwed me over and refused to make it right. In my demand letter, I made a pretty sizeable request that included compensation for my time and frustration. Once it hit their legal department, they cut me a check - no questions asked. It was far cheaper to settle with me than to send their legal team to defend them in the arbitration.
    • I never thought of looking at it on multiple purchases like you said.  Yes, the extended may help me on 1 or 2 items but not the other 5 or 6.
    • Day 84 - Forgot to post yesterday, but I did some more chipping/pitching.    Back/neck were feeling better today, so I did a much overdue Stack session. 
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬛⬛🟩🟨⬛ 🟩⬛🟩⬛🟨 🟩🟩🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...