[NashGuy]

But the wife wants no part of waiting for a day unless it is something she records on the DVR.

Tell her that if she's willing to wait the next day and stream it on ad-free Hulu, Paramount+ or Peacock, then she'll get better picture quality and won't have to bother with fast forwarding through ads like on a DVR recording. I remember the first time I watched SNL on Hulu as opposed to my local NBC station (even getting it OTA, not through overly compressed cable), I was astounded how much better it looked. FX has even begun streaming most of their shows in 4K next-day on Hulu.

Also there's no risk of missing parts of shows due to severe weather coverage (which happens a lot here in tornado-prone Middle TN). Nor do you have to put up with obnoxious on-screen graphics promoting other shows or local station crawlers with news updates, election returns, etc. It's a much more pleasant viewing experience to stream shows on-demand rather than watch on linear channel TV, IMO.

 

[Mike Lang]

Even what we think is ad free is really content with strategic product placement. There's no avoiding it.

 

[James Long]

Even what we think is ad free is really content with strategic product placement. There's no avoiding it.

Do you mean all those cigarette signs in the Superman movie were intentional?

 

[the2130]

Tell her that if she's willing to wait the next day and stream it on ad-free Hulu, Paramount+ or Peacock, then she'll get better picture quality and won't have to bother with fast forwarding through ads like on a DVR recording. I remember the first time I watched SNL on Hulu as opposed to my local NBC station (even getting it OTA, not through overly compressed cable), I was astounded how much better it looked. FX has even begun streaming most of their shows in 4K next-day on Hulu.

Also there's no risk of missing parts of shows due to severe weather coverage (which happens a lot here in tornado-prone Middle TN). Nor do you have to put up with obnoxious on-screen graphics promoting other shows or local station crawlers with news updates, election returns, etc. It's a much more pleasant viewing experience to stream shows on-demand rather than watch on linear channel TV, IMO.

That's how we watch almost all of the network shows we follow. Even though most of them are still set to record on the DVR, we stream them instead. It's a much better viewing experience. The networks and local stations have gotten so aggressive with their channel bugs and other graphics overlays during shows, it's just annoying to watch. It's nice to have to have ad-free, next-day streaming as an alternative.

 

[b4pjoe]

Tell her that if she's willing to wait the next day and stream it on ad-free Hulu, Paramount+ or Peacock, then she'll get better picture quality and won't have to bother with fast forwarding through ads like on a DVR recording. I remember the first time I watched SNL on Hulu as opposed to my local NBC station (even getting it OTA, not through overly compressed cable), I was astounded how much better it looked. FX has even begun streaming most of their shows in 4K next-day on Hulu.

Also there's no risk of missing parts of shows due to severe weather coverage (which happens a lot here in tornado-prone Middle TN). Nor do you have to put up with obnoxious on-screen graphics promoting other shows or local station crawlers with news updates, election returns, etc. It's a much more pleasant viewing experience to stream shows on-demand rather than watch on linear channel TV, IMO.

Yep. Been down that road. She doesn't like having to switch HDMI inputs and finding the app on her Amazon Cube. She does it if she has too but she is used to her DirecTV. But still whines about rain fade. I watch all of the shows ad free on streaming that I can.

 

[NashGuy]

Yep. Been down that road. She doesn't like having to switch HDMI inputs and finding the app on her Amazon Cube. She does it if she has too but she is used to her DirecTV. But still whines about rain fade. I watch all of the shows ad free on streaming that I can.

Ah, but if you dropped satellite/cable, then your streaming device would be the only thing she'd be watching through. So no switching inputs or remotes.

Some of her resistance may come down to the unavailability of certain cable content via on-demand streaming services (at least without having to wait several months). That's mainly only true, though, when it comes to sports and cable news talk shows. But it sounds like a lot of it in her case is just being used to watching TV a certain way (DirecTV) and not wanting to have to adjust to a different way (multiple streaming apps). Which is fair. People like what they like and if they're willing to pay what it costs, then OK. Hard for me to see the value proposition in cable vs. streaming, though, unless you're on cable for the sports.

 

[b4pjoe]

Ah, but if you dropped satellite/cable, then your streaming device would be the only thing she'd be watching through. So no switching inputs or remotes.

Some of her resistance may come down to the unavailability of certain cable content via on-demand streaming services (at least without having to wait several months). That's mainly only true, though, when it comes to sports and cable news talk shows. But it sounds like a lot of it in her case is just being used to watching TV a certain way (DirecTV) and not wanting to have to adjust to a different way (multiple streaming apps). Which is fair. People like what they like and if they're willing to pay what it costs, then OK. Hard for me to see the value proposition in cable vs. streaming, though, unless you're on cable for the sports.

Yeah most of what she watches is the 4 major networks prime time shows. That is why I would like to see all 4 networks operate like Paramount+. I would not need a cable/sat/or streaming service like DirecTV Stream, Hulu Live TV, or Youtube TV. Doubt if I ever see that though.

 

[NashGuy]

Yeah most of what she watches is the 4 major networks prime time shows. That is why I would like to see all 4 networks operate like Paramount+. I would not need a cable/sat/or streaming service like DirecTV Stream, Hulu Live TV, or Youtube TV. Doubt if I ever see that though.

Well, once again, nearly all of the ABC, Fox and NBC primetime shows are on Hulu next-day, along with a whole lot of additional stuff. Get it ad-free for $13/mo. And get Paramount+ ad-free (with live local CBS) for another $10/mo. Total of $23/mo is a heck of a lot less than YTTV's $65/mo. If you prepaid for a year of the Paramount+ premium plan ($100), your total annual cost for it and Hulu ad-free combined would be $524 cheaper than a year of YTTV.

You should see if you could talk her into pausing the DTV subscription for a month and trying to do just those two services (plus whatever other streaming subscriptions you normally do), doing everything through your Fire TV cube.

 

[the2130]

Yep. Been down that road. She doesn't like having to switch HDMI inputs and finding the app on her Amazon Cube. She does it if she has too but she is used to her DirecTV. But still whines about rain fade. I watch all of the shows ad free on streaming that I can.

If you have an Internet-connected smart TV, there shouldn't be any need to switch HDMI inputs. The streaming apps can be can be accessed directly from the TV.

 

[the2130]

Even what we think is ad free is really content with strategic product placement. There's no avoiding it.

Product placement in TV shows and movies is in no way comparable to commercials.

 

[James Long]

Product placement in TV shows and movies is in no way comparable to commercials.

Everything is comparable. Not everything is of equal pain. Some would argue "product placement" is worse when it disrupts the dialog and action during the show.

If you have seen the Truman movie there were blatant product placements where the characters highlighted a product including one where Truman noticed his wife rambling on about a product and asked "who are you talking to?" I laughed at that fictional excess but wasn't laughing when Hawaii-Five O did a product placement for Subway where a main character pushed the quality and value of those sandwiches while sitting at the food truck featured as part of the show (the food truck the character owned!). Not only was it a long period of off topic non-plot advancing garbage pushing a product it was a betrayal of the characters. (The second most obvious product placement on the show were the cars ... a lot of chase scenes with the same kind of beauty shots one sees in a car commercial.) There are a lot of logo placements in shows. Pro tip: If you see a brand name on screen (logo not obscured) someone probably paid to put it there.

I'd rather have commercials than force writers change the plot of the shows I watch. But everyone has their pet peeves.

 

[harsh]

Ah, but if you dropped satellite/cable, then your streaming device would be the only thing she'd be watching through. So no switching inputs or remotes.

Trading switching HDMI inputs for half dozen substantially different apps isn't necessarily a win.

 

[the2130]

Everything is comparable. Not everything is of equal pain. Some would argue "product placement" is worse when it disrupts the dialog and action during the show.

If you have seen the Truman movie there were blatant product placements where the characters highlighted a product including one where Truman noticed his wife rambling on about a product and asked "who are you talking to?" I laughed at that fictional excess but wasn't laughing when Hawaii-Five O did a product placement for Subway where a main character pushed the quality and value of those sandwiches while sitting at the food truck featured as part of the show (the food truck the character owned!). Not only was it a long period of off topic non-plot advancing garbage pushing a product it was a betrayal of the characters. (The second most obvious product placement on the show were the cars ... a lot of chase scenes with the same kind of beauty shots one sees in a car commercial.) There are a lot of logo placements in shows. Pro tip: If you see a brand name on screen (logo not obscured) someone probably paid to put it there.

I'd rather have commercials than force writers change the plot of the shows I watch. But everyone has their pet peeves.

It sounds like product placement is a much bigger deal for you than it is for me. When I see name-brand products in programs, like the HP logo on computer equipment in "The Office", it's obvious a company is paying for that, but it really doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't interfere with the story. After all, the story is about people working in an office who happen to be using PCs. There are more blatant examples, like the ones you mentioned, but I tend to just ignore stuff like that as long as it fits in with the story. We all have our pet peeves - for me, it's commercials that interrupt the programming and can't be skipped.

 

[NashGuy]

Trading switching HDMI inputs for half dozen substantially different apps isn't necessarily a win.

And on cable TV, you have the hassle of shuffling through all those channels, plus managing your DVR. Honestly, it's just what you get used to.

 

[billsharpe]

We have had Verizon/Frontier FiOS for over seven years and have become quite comfortable with the service. I did buy a Roku TV set four years ago and have subscribed to a few streaming services. We're not quite willing to give up the convenience of cable TV just yet. I may give Hulu with Live TV a try before ditching the cable. We already have Paramount+.

 

[harsh]

There are more blatant examples, like the ones you mentioned, but I tend to just ignore stuff like that as long as it fits in with the story.

Apple gives away tons of equipment for product placement and I've never been perturbed or influenced by any of it.

 

[NashGuy]

Yeah most of what she watches is the 4 major networks prime time shows. That is why I would like to see all 4 networks operate like Paramount+. I would not need a cable/sat/or streaming service like DirecTV Stream, Hulu Live TV, or Youtube TV. Doubt if I ever see that though.

Another thought: can you get a basic TV package from your broadband provider that includes just your local broadcast channels? That's usually an option from cable operators, although often not from telco/fiber operators like AT&T, Verizon or Frontier. Comcast has a package called Basic that includes the local channels, in HD if broadcast that way, plus cloud DVR service with 20 hours of storage. The incremental cost to add it to standalone broadband, including the broadcast TV fee, is an extra $25-30 per month. (It varies, because the broadcast TV fee varies from one area to another.) You can stream it through their app for Roku, Fire TV, etc. for no additional cost.

For a similar price, Charter offers something similar, except it also includes your pick of 10 cable channels. But no DVR service.
Spectrum TV Choice review: A la carte TV for cord-cutters, but at a cost | TechHive

 

[b4pjoe]

That article is a couple of years old. My local TV cable company is Charter/Spectrum. Right now they have "TV Stream". Stream 25+ channels including live local broadcasts and watch thousands of On Demand titles. No cable box required. $24.99 per month. Then you get into the fine print.

On top of that $24.99 per month charge is another $12.95 Broadcast TV Charge per month that explains "The Broadcast TV Surcharge is a fee by the owners of local broadcast "network-affiliated," TV stations (affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and so on). The fee enables Spectrum to continue to offer these channels for our customers." So now it becomes $37.94 per month.

Then if you want Cloud DVR they have two plans:

Record up to 50 shows and save them for 90 days for $4.99 per month

Record up to 100 shows and save them for one year. for $9.99 per month

If you would like a dedicated HD box you can add that for $8.99 per month.

See where this is going? If I wanted the DVR option I'd have to get the $9.99 one so now that would put me at $47.93 which doesn't sound that bad until you realize you are only getting 25 channels.

And here are the 25 channels.

View attachment 31789

 

[NashGuy]

That article is a couple of years old. My local TV cable company is Charter/Spectrum. Right now they have "TV Stream". Stream 25+ channels including live local broadcasts and watch thousands of On Demand titles. No cable box required. $24.99 per month. Then you get into the fine print.

On top of that $24.99 per month charge is another $12.95 Broadcast TV Charge per month that explains "The Broadcast TV Surcharge is a fee by the owners of local broadcast "network-affiliated," TV stations (affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and so on). The fee enables Spectrum to continue to offer these channels for our customers." So now it becomes $37.94 per month.

Then if you want Cloud DVR they have two plans:

Record up to 50 shows and save them for 90 days for $4.99 per month

Record up to 100 shows and save them for one year. for $9.99 per month

If you would like a dedicated HD box you can add that for $8.99 per month.

See where this is going? If I wanted the DVR option I'd have to get the $9.99 one so now that would put me at $47.93 which doesn't sound that bad until you realize you are only getting 25 channels.

And here are the 25 channels.

View attachment 31789

Hmm, so the overall cost has gone up. But in the past, they didn't offer a cloud DVR option to go with it.

At any rate, you seemed to indicate that all you (or, rather, your wife) really care about on cable/satellite TV are your local broadcast channels. So you can get them, plus 10 cable channels that you may not watch, for $37.94, which has to be a fair amount less than you pay for DirecTV.

As for renting an HD box, why? Since this is a package available via streaming, just use the Spectrum app on your own device.

As for paying for cloud DVR, that may depend on whether you keep Hulu and Paramount+ subscriptions. If you do, then you can watch pretty much all the broadcast nets' shows on-demand the next day and for at least the next few weeks (with better PQ and without ads if you pay for the ad-free tier). Which renders the Spectrum cloud DVR largely superfluous.

Maybe Spectrum has a locals-only package (which requires their own TV adapter and remote), no cable channels, that costs less. As I say, Comcast does (and I thought all cable operators were required to offer such, although maybe not any more).

But at any rate, yeah, the cost to get your local broadcast channels isn't cheap. Unless you can get them for free with an antenna. But if watching network stuff on-demand (via Hulu, etc.) isn't good enough, and you have to have those live locals, well, you'll have to pay...

 

[b4pjoe]

Yeah I watch a lot of other channels than locals. I'd have to check Hulu again. When I had ad free there were a lot of TV shows that weren't on there at all.

I didn't add in the HD boxes to the price. I just listed it as $8.99 per month option.

And you are right that is a lot cheaper than DirecTV. If I lived alone I'd probably do that and keep Paramount+ and Discovery+ which I watch a lot of stuff on. And like I said I would have to take another look at Hulu ad free. All of those together would still be far cheaper than DirecTV sat. If like you say Hulu ad free would fill in most everything besides Paramount+ it might be an option. If not I would have to have the Cloud DVR as I work nights.