More on Cord Cutting - costs going up

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
$9.99 2mb DSL was more than enough for me, too bad monthly prices have had to get jacked up so much.

Where in Wisconsin were you getting 2mb DSL for $9.99? I remember way back when we first got DSL in the Milwaukee area, it was 192Kb and cost upwards of $25 a month.

And I was happy for that, four times the speed of dial-up and didn't hog the phone line.
 
Originally Posted by CKN
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by CKN
Comcast in markets where there is no competition-caps at 1TB. I'm no fan of Comcast/Xfinity but unless you are living in your Mom's basement-not working and play video games at night that's enough for the average family.
Not if you are Internet streaming all/most of your TV in HD to several sets. You would be surprised at how much monthly data this actually uses.


I am well aware how much data one can use. If your streaming network TV-that's nonsensical. I do understand that a very small part of the population lives out of reach of TV broadcast towers, but for those who do live with in reach of broadcast signals there are many wall mounted, attic mounted and roof mounted antennas that will actually provide a truly great picture on your wide screen. Also streaming in 4k is unnecessary. It's funny-now with streaming/game playing, etc., everyone thinks they have a birthright to stream as much as they want-and not pay (fully) for it.

I sold computer RAID systems for a living-I am quite aware of what (data) infrastructure costs.

With regards to data-consider the following-
https://www.consumerreports.org/telecom-services/how-easy-to-burn-through-1TB-data-cap/
I wasn't talking about network TV, I have an antenna for that. I'm talking about channels/networks that were traditionally carried by cable or satellite like A&E, Discovery, Motor Trend, Science, History, Food, etc.
I wasn't talking about 4K either. 1080P and even 720P can consume a LOT of data over the course of a month. I don't think that any of the internet streaming services even offer true 4K, at least I haven't found 4K with any of the streaming services that I have access to. Amazon Prime claims to have 4k, but it must be heavily compressed because it doesn't look any better than 1080P to me. I tried my buddy's Netflix and it was the same with them.
The first month after I cut cable and went with Roku boxes using Philo and Amazon Prime for my primary streaming services, I consumed over 950gb of data. Now I am very careful but I still use more than 800gb/mo. Of course this amount of data includes all of the other things that I am doing on various other devices, but the amount of data they consume is a small fraction of what the TV streaming uses. If my kids were still living at home I would bust 1tb EVERY month, NO PROBLEM!
I don't know how CR calculated the data use, but I have over 14 months of actual usage statistics to prove what I use. This month I have already used 541gb of data, and there is another week left in the month.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by CKN
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by CKN
Comcast in markets where there is no competition-caps at 1TB. I'm no fan of Comcast/Xfinity but unless you are living in your Mom's basement-not working and play video games at night that's enough for the average family.
Not if you are Internet streaming all/most of your TV in HD to several sets. You would be surprised at how much monthly data this actually uses.


I am well aware how much data one can use. If your streaming network TV-that's nonsensical. I do understand that a very small part of the population lives out of reach of TV broadcast towers, but for those who do live with in reach of broadcast signals there are many wall mounted, attic mounted and roof mounted antennas that will actually provide a truly great picture on your wide screen. Also streaming in 4k is unnecessary. It's funny-now with streaming/game playing, etc., everyone thinks they have a birthright to stream as much as they want-and not pay (fully) for it.

I sold computer RAID systems for a living-I am quite aware of what (data) infrastructure costs.

With regards to data-consider the following-
https://www.consumerreports.org/telecom-services/how-easy-to-burn-through-1TB-data-cap/
I wasn't talking about network TV, I have an antenna for that. I'm talking about channels/networks that were traditionally carried by cable or satellite like A&E, Discovery, Motor Trend, Science, History, Food, etc.
I wasn't talking about 4K either. 1080P and even 720P can consume a LOT of data over the course of a month. I don't think that any of the internet streaming services even offer true 4K, at least I haven't found 4K with any of the streaming services that I have access to. Amazon Prime claims to have 4k, but it must be heavily compressed because it doesn't look any better than 1080P to me. I tried my buddy's Netflix and it was the same with them.
The first month after I cut cable and went with Roku boxes using Philo and Amazon Prime for my primary streaming services, I consumed over 950gb of data. Now I am very careful but I still use more than 800gb/mo. Of course this amount of data includes all of the other things that I am doing on various other devices, but the amount of data they consume is a small fraction of what the TV streaming uses. If my kids were still living at home I would bust 1tb EVERY month, NO PROBLEM!
I don't know how CR calculated the data use, but I have over 14 months of actual usage statistics to prove what I use. This month I have already used 541gb of data, and there is another week left in the month.


It sounds like you watch a little more Television than the average viewer.
 
Originally Posted by wag123

I don't know how CR calculated the data use, but I have over 14 months of actual usage statistics to prove what I use. This month I have already used 541gb of data, and there is another week left in the month.


"We think Rayburn's number is more realistic, because even if you're ostensibly streaming HD video, the quality gets adjusted dynamically based on the available bandwidth at your home."

They're on the lower side in reality. Assuming you have a solid 10mbps or faster connection, it will pretty much always default to HD, consuming more data than SD. Our usage is on the high side because it does default to HD all the time.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by wag123

I don't know how CR calculated the data use, but I have over 14 months of actual usage statistics to prove what I use. This month I have already used 541gb of data, and there is another week left in the month.


"We think Rayburn's number is more realistic, because even if you're ostensibly streaming HD video, the quality gets adjusted dynamically based on the available bandwidth at your home."

They're on the lower side in reality. Assuming you have a solid 10mbps or faster connection, it will pretty much always default to HD, consuming more data than SD. Our usage is on the high side because it does default to HD all the time.


Most modern routers allow you to set bandwith limits for individual devices on your network to curb data consumption. For example, unrestricted, my Roku boxes will average 10 Mbps when pulling HD content from Amazon Prime Video. But I can throttle them down to 5 Mbps, thus reducing their data usage in half, yet I cannot tell any difference in picture quality.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by CKN
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by CKN
Comcast in markets where there is no competition-caps at 1TB. I'm no fan of Comcast/Xfinity but unless you are living in your Mom's basement-not working and play video games at night that's enough for the average family.
Not if you are Internet streaming all/most of your TV in HD to several sets. You would be surprised at how much monthly data this actually uses.


I am well aware how much data one can use. If your streaming network TV-that's nonsensical. I do understand that a very small part of the population lives out of reach of TV broadcast towers, but for those who do live with in reach of broadcast signals there are many wall mounted, attic mounted and roof mounted antennas that will actually provide a truly great picture on your wide screen. Also streaming in 4k is unnecessary. It's funny-now with streaming/game playing, etc., everyone thinks they have a birthright to stream as much as they want-and not pay (fully) for it.

I sold computer RAID systems for a living-I am quite aware of what (data) infrastructure costs.

With regards to data-consider the following-
https://www.consumerreports.org/telecom-services/how-easy-to-burn-through-1TB-data-cap/
I wasn't talking about network TV, I have an antenna for that. I'm talking about channels/networks that were traditionally carried by cable or satellite like A&E, Discovery, Motor Trend, Science, History, Food, etc.
I wasn't talking about 4K either. 1080P and even 720P can consume a LOT of data over the course of a month. I don't think that any of the internet streaming services even offer true 4K, at least I haven't found 4K with any of the streaming services that I have access to. Amazon Prime claims to have 4k, but it must be heavily compressed because it doesn't look any better than 1080P to me. I tried my buddy's Netflix and it was the same with them....


No pay tv cable or satellite company offers true uncompressed 1080P or 4 K.
Only free TV comes close to true 1080P. Free over the air TV picture is far superior to cable from the same source (major network stations).

All pay TV and Streaming compress their signals not just streaming.
True 4k can ONLY be acquired with a 4K disc player.

Here is where buying a good quality TV pays off. The upconverting and local dimming will bring satisfaction from any streaming service.
Meaning, you really dont need to pay extra for Netlfex 4k if your TV has really good up converting and your watching it on a 65 inch Tv at 5 feet or more from the screen.

Something in the areas of the Sony 900 and up series and the equal of Samsung and LG.
These sets are in the 1200 to 2000 range. not the 200 to 500.

With that said, there is nothing wrong with getting adulterated/compressed 4k material from the pay TV services as long as you understand its not true 4K.

To this day I still can not go to REDBOX and rent a 4k movie nor can I get unadulterated 4k programming from ANY pay TV service and now the TV manufacturers want you to get onboard with 8K.
Well, Houston, I think the TV makers are going to have a tough time getting people to pay to upgrade to a TV with 8K, if their 4k is still good because no matter what they tell you, you will never see the 8k picture that you see on the TV in Best Buy in your own living room. As again, you still cant get true 4K
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
No pay tv cable or satellite company offers true uncompressed 1080P or 4 K.
Only free TV comes close to true 1080P. Free over the air TV picture is far superior to cable from the same source (major network stations).
Maybe it varies by region, but around here the free OTA 1080 TV channels are just as heavily compressed as what I've seen delivered by DirecTV or AT&T U-verse.

I suppose each local broadcaster decides what level of compression to use, just like with HD radio.
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by alarmguy
No pay tv cable or satellite company offers true uncompressed 1080P or 4 K.
Only free TV comes close to true 1080P. Free over the air TV picture is far superior to cable from the same source (major network stations).
Maybe it varies by region, but around here the free OTA 1080 TV channels are just as heavily compressed as what I've seen delivered by DirecTV or AT&T U-verse.

I suppose each local broadcaster decides what level of compression to use, just like with HD radio.


Why would OTA broadcasters need to compress their signal?
 
@marine65 they do it to fit more programming. They may have a regular channel with HD content and a few sub channels with 480i resolution. Say CBS on 6.1, AntenaTV on 6.2, etc.
 
My family of 3 streamers (YouTube, Xfinity stream, Netflix) and me working at home 100% (video conferencing 10hrs week) averages 850GB usage on xfinity.

No idea on resolution but we have 200Mbps down/5up using google WiFi mesh and Ethernet.
 
Internet is $9.95 a month.

Netflix is $9 a month. Prime I always have, for the shipping, and music and picture storage. Some OK shows and movies on Prime.

I have used Sling, Hulu live, and YouTube TV. I highly preferred YouTube TV over the others. I didnt watch enough TV to actually pay for it, so I cancelled them.

Pluto TV is free, a couple hundred channels. You can always find something to watch on their.

Tubi has plenty of free content.

The Roku free channel has rotating content that changes every month. Lots of free content there.

Crackle has plenty of free tv and movies.

Hoopla I log in with my library card number and it allows me to "check out" new release movies and tv shows from my local library system, for free.

Popcorn Flix has plenty of free movies.

There is a TON of free content. If I was an inmate with a 25 year sentence that watched tv for 18 hours a day, I dont think I would run out of content to watch.

If you google how to, you can watch a ton of bootleg content for free on the Amazon fire stick. Movies that are still in the theater, for free. Pay per view events for free. Every hockey, NFL, college football game, with no blackouts, all in high definition, for free.
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy

Here is where buying a good quality TV pays off. The upconverting and local dimming will bring satisfaction from any streaming service.
Meaning, you really dont need to pay extra for Netlfex 4k if your TV has really good up converting and your watching it on a 65 inch Tv at 5 feet or more from the screen.

Something in the areas of the Sony 900 and up series and the equal of Samsung and LG.
These sets are in the 1200 to 2000 range. not the 200 to 500.


All but the absolute cheapest of TV's do a decent job of upscaling content. I can't really tell a difference between my $500 65" TCL tv and one that costs 3x as much when streaming.

That being said, if you have an older tv, the new ones are significantly better. My parents went from a Vizio they bought in 2007 to a new LG that was half the cost a few months ago. The difference is truly amazing.
 
What someone describes as heavily compressed is subjective without the data.

Im not saying depending on what area of the country an OTA cant be 'heavily" compressed but find it hard to believe it can be anywhere near any pay TV site.
But its easy as heck for anyone to confirm signal. Again, Im not saying Quattro is wrong but will be the first instance I have heard in 10 years. At least one thing is true, the OTA is free and the signal is just as good as the pay tv companies at the very least. :eek:)

Pay TV compression is fact. OTA granted can be compressed but would be on a local level, not necesserly regional. Meaning your broadcast towers are local.

Remember I am talking the Major network stations, not "side" channels.
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
What someone describes as heavily compressed is subjective without the data.
I have not seen you present any data either.


Quote
Im not saying depending on what area of the country an OTA cant be 'heavily" compressed but find it hard to believe it can be anywhere near any pay TV site.
That's what I thought, too, until I saw my local OTA channels. Not saying they're awful or unwatchable. It's just that you can see compression artifacts, similar to what I saw from DirecTV and ATT Uverse. If you sit 10 feet away or more from a 55" TV, it's a non issue regardless of source.
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by alarmguy
What someone describes as heavily compressed is subjective without the data.
I have not seen you present any data either.


Quote
Im not saying depending on what area of the country an OTA cant be 'heavily" compressed but find it hard to believe it can be anywhere near any pay TV site.
That's what I thought, too, until I saw my local OTA channels. Not saying they're awful or unwatchable. It's just that you can see compression artifacts, similar to what I saw from DirecTV and ATT Uverse. If you sit 10 feet away or more from a 55" TV, it's a non issue regardless of source.



Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by alarmguy
What someone describes as heavily compressed is subjective without the data.
I have not seen you present any data either.


Quote
Im not saying depending on what area of the country an OTA cant be 'heavily" compressed but find it hard to believe it can be anywhere near any pay TV site.
That's what I thought, too, until I saw my local OTA channels. Not saying they're awful or unwatchable. It's just that you can see compression artifacts, similar to what I saw from DirecTV and ATT Uverse. If you sit 10 feet away or more from a 55" TV, it's a non issue regardless of source.




Ummm .. I think you are contesting my statement. I haven't seen anyplace in your post how you have viewed both sources in your home and compared.
I have and countless others agree, in addition to professionals (lack of better words) in the press by using a search engine.
True, it is subjective and WHY all one needs to do is hook an antenna up to their TV and see for themselves, that would be my "source" for others, I would bet most areas fo the country would be in favor of OTA except some areas like you state, assuming you have tried it.


Click here

and here ...

and here ...

and here ..

and here ...

Best of the best, dont miss this one! - Click

Put on your reading glasses to check the resolution of the Oakland Raiders Logo. Check the word for crisp text, Cable TV doesnt come close to the resolution of the Antenna OTA picture on the left.
Left picture is the free TV antenna picture, Right Picture is the Pay TV Cable Picture.

[Linked Image from images.idgesg.net]


Same Here Broadcast TV on Left, Cable Right

[Linked Image from images.idgesg.net]
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy
I haven't seen anyplace in your post how you have viewed both sources in your home and compared.

I did. Bought and hooked up OTA antenna before shutting off my ATT TV service.


Quote
I have and countless others agree, in addition to professionals (lack of better words) in the press by using a search engine.
True, it is subjective and WHY all one needs to do is hook an antenna up to their TV and see for themselves, that would be my "source" for others, I would bet most areas fo the country would be in favor of OTA except some areas like you state, assuming you have tried it.


Again, I never said OTA is no better than other sources everywhere. Only in my area as that that is what I recently compared.

From what I recall living in other parts of the country, OTA did provide better picture quality.

YMMV is all I am saying.
 
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by alarmguy

Here is where buying a good quality TV pays off. The upconverting and local dimming will bring satisfaction from any streaming service.
Meaning, you really dont need to pay extra for Netlfex 4k if your TV has really good up converting and your watching it on a 65 inch Tv at 5 feet or more from the screen.

Something in the areas of the Sony 900 and up series and the equal of Samsung and LG.
These sets are in the 1200 to 2000 range. not the 200 to 500.


All but the absolute cheapest of TV's do a decent job of upscaling content. I can't really tell a difference between my $500 65" TCL tv and one that costs 3x as much when streaming.

That being said, if you have an older tv, the new ones are significantly better. My parents went from a Vizio they bought in 2007 to a new LG that was half the cost a few months ago. The difference is truly amazing.


I was in Walmart a couple days ago and saw a 58" HDR 5K T.V. for $288.
I know it wont be as good as more expensive sets but a family on a tight budget can have a decent T.V. for $300 with tax.
 
Would a 120 channel package from cable or satellite have less compression then a 180 channel package?

I have Direct T.V. and an antenna as a back up when I lose the satellite due to storms.
I'm 3 miles from the transmitter that sits high on a mountain so my picture is perfect.
The over the air is just slightly better than the satellite.
But the over the air sound is much better.
 
Originally Posted by marine65
Would a 120 channel package from cable or satellite have less compression then a 180 channel package?
No. It'll be the same.

Quote
But the over the air sound is much better.

You should be getting Dolby Digital 5.1 from most major TV stations, regardless if it comes OTA or from the cable company, so it should sound the same once proccessed through an HT receiver, but I suppose it's possible the cable company is messing with the audio signal.
 
IPTV boxes are cheap to buy and subscriptions are quite cheap too.
We got a box and a year subscription for $120 Canadian with (I think) at least 500 channels or so.
TV is live only while TV Series can be watched on demand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top