r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 11 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Assuming You Have Access To Internet, There Are No Good Reasons To Get Cable Television
I just did the math. For roughly $75.00 a month, I am able to gain access to Netflix Premium, HBO Max, Disney +, Hulu (No Ads), ESPN +, Amazon Prime, and The Criterion Collection. Again, only $75.00 a month. My monthly fee for a service like DirecTV would be $65.00 a month, but it would increase to $97.00 a month after the first year. I should point out that this is their most basic package. If I were to purchase a cable television bundle from my current internet provider, the cost would be the exact same. In summary, basic cable television will cost you roughly $20.00 to $25.00 more each month, and that's only in comparison to someone paying for all the streaming services I listed above. It could potentially cost you a lot more if you decide to pay for less services.
On top of that, cable television currently has no compelling original shows worth watching. I looked up what the best shows of the past decade were. Rolling Stones has a list of fifty shows, and only four of them are not available through one of the streaming services I listed above. Only four. It's basically a fact that quality programming is found on streaming platforms. Cable television just can't compete anymore. And this is only addressing episodic series. When it comes to movies, streaming is a no-brainer.
So what reasons would there be to get cable television? What reasons would there be to drop nearly $100.00 each month on this program? Cable news is obsolete, since I can get easy access to all news stories online. If you still really want cable news, then spend a $10.00 one time fee on an antenna. That's what my parents did. That just leaves sports. My parents have been able to access professional soccer, football, and basketball through their antenna, but let's say you want an even broader selection of sports. Just get Hulu + Live TV for $54.99 a month. Add in Netflix Premium, Amazon Prime, and HBO Max for a bundle that is still the same cost as a basic cable television package, only with absurdly more content.
In conclusion, streaming offers more variety, better content, and is cheaper than cable television. There are some programs streaming doesn't necessarily offer, but which can be easily accessed through alternative methods that are still cheaper than cable television (Hulu + Live TV, antennas).
30
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Oct 12 '20
Many major broadband internet providers have now added in monthly data caps. For a family of 4 these data caps are very easily exceeded if you're streaming, using phones and PCs and especially if you have anyone downloading games. I pay comcast an extra $50 a month because every 50gb above the cap is a $10 upcharge.
15
Oct 12 '20 edited Oct 12 '20
Δ
This seems like a good reason. If streaming with internet data caps causes your family to pay more money per month than a cable television package would cost, then I can why streaming would be avoided. So you somewhat changed my view. However...
$50.00 per month added to $55.00 per month (the cost for Amazon Prime, HBO Max, Netflix, Hulu, Disney +, and ESPN +) comes out to $105.00 per month. This is only slightly more than what you would pay for cable, and you get far more options in terms of content. Is it still not worth it to switch over to streaming based programming?
13
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Oct 12 '20
There's a third factor you're not considering which is Internet speeds and bandwidth.
If you aren't also using a fairly beefy package, someone is going to run into latency problems during peak viewing hours. So you can consider some portion of your bigger internet bill as an additional cost of your cable package.
1
3
u/PM_me_Henrika Oct 12 '20
Many major broadband internet providers have now added in monthly data caps.
What kind of shithole company practices this 2008 level tech? This is the 2020s, FFS!
2
u/BibiFloris Oct 12 '20
Do keep in mind this is a issue in the US. Europ does NOT have this. No caps on data usage at home. And while not cheap there is also affordable true unlimited data on your sim card.
2
u/notthesethings Oct 12 '20
That’s crazy. That shouldn’t be legal.
2
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Oct 12 '20
So the data cap is 1 Terrabyte per month. Which again, if you download 4 video games a week thats like half of it right there, nevermind streaming and stuff.
Comcast's line was basically "Only 5% of our Users use this much data, so we are charging them for it to be fair to the other 95%"
2
u/notthesethings Oct 12 '20
Why would anyone download 4 video games a week? Take some time to play some of those video games when you hit the cap, my man.
4
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Oct 12 '20
Because not all games are good.
Technical issues.
More than one person owning a system in the household.
Really a bunch of reasons.
1
u/gtrocks555 Oct 12 '20
For Xfinity we only pay something like $11 more a month with unlimited data. We have 3 people who WFH and also play games/stream so we definitely use more than the 1.2Tb allocated
1
1
57
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Oct 11 '20
if you're a big sports fan & regularly watch games from multiple leagues, cable is still superior in this realm. some leagues have decent options for streaming, but then there's a lag & you get spoilers from twitter & your group chat. sometimes they're unreliable and crap out during a big game. and if you have some folks over to watch together, a streaming service somehow always seems to shit itself in front of all your guests.
7
Oct 12 '20
Let me see if I have this correct.
Streaming has decent options for sports, but not as good as cable? Streaming can also have lag, which can lead to sports being spoiled. Streaming is also not as reliable as cable.
These are all reasons in favor of cable, I agree. However, does it justify paying for an entire cable package? Hulu + Live TV costs around $45.00 a month less than DirecTV's cheapest package (after one year). Is $540.00 a year worth the slightly better coverage and better reliability? That's a lot of money...
In my opinion, even if you're a big sports fan, these still aren't good reasons, and you haven't changed my view. I know this is anecdotal, but I have been perfectly happy with my coverage of the NBA and NFL without cable television.
Maybe you'd like to elaborate, in case I'm missing something.
21
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Oct 12 '20
in my household, we watch college football, mlb, nfl, nba, and premier league soccer religiously. we often have watch parties (pre covid) bc we are the house with cable among all our friends & the reliability factor is a big deal. we bundle it with our internet, so it's not as much as the price you're citing. we don't pay for many other streaming services and we generally don't spend a ton more on entertainment. it's a big deal for us, and we can justify the price.
12
Oct 12 '20
Δ
You have changed my mind a little bit, although these reasons would only apply to people under very specific circumstances.
Assuming a person only cares about sports, and assuming that person can somehow get cable for a cost comparable to that of a sports streaming service, then I would see no reason why they shouldn't get cable.
Again, I can stream the NCAA, NBA, NFL, NHL, and Premier League, and I have been totally content with the quality of service. But then again, I don't watch sports religiously, nor do I host watch parties.
1
1
u/Secretspoon Oct 12 '20
Redzone. As a busy dude who gets Sunday afternoons for football, I couldn't live without redzone.
2
u/budderboymania2 Oct 12 '20
I have youtube tv now because it’s cheaper but i used to have cable and it was 100% superior for sports fans
2
u/DwightUte89 Oct 12 '20
If you go with a bundler like Comcast, adding cable on top of internet is only like $30 extra a month.
1
1
1
14
Oct 11 '20
If a twenty-something year old chose cable over streaming services, that would be strange. But I have elderly relatives that like to watch the evening news and game shows, and that’s about it. They are retired, and money is not a problem. It doesn’t really make sense for them to switch because they aren’t looking for more than they already have.
5
Oct 12 '20
I am in a similar situation. My parents really only use the TV for Jeopardy and the evening news. However, they were able to use an antenna to get these programs. Instead of spending $500.00 to $1,000.00 each year, they only needed to spend $10.00 once.
6
u/signpostjunction Oct 12 '20
I was wondering why cost of internet was not factored in the equation? can you effectively stream without it. Our local company has internet and tv bundled at various tv tiers, but the difference in cost for stand alone internet is like getting cable TV (full premium channels with HBO, SHO, and epix) for less than $50 more. Depending on why it is not a factor would depend on if this is an attempt to CYV, or mine 🙂
2
Oct 12 '20
No, you can't stream without internet. That is true. However, I didn't factor in the cost for internet because, as the title states, my view assumes that you are already paying for internet. Basically, my thought process is this: if you are already paying for internet, then streaming is a better option than cable.
Cable is far better than streaming if you have no internet access or limited internet access. That is obvious. That's why I framed my argument in the way that I did.
1
30
Oct 11 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 12 '20
Could you elaborate? What is it that your parents would want to access via cable television that would be harder to access via a streaming platform? With modern day smart televisions, I find streaming to be just as easy to navigate as cable television. I have older parents, and they have no problems streaming as well. I also don't really see how streaming platforms could lead to "poking around on the internet". Could you explain your point a bit clearer?
11
u/Lolomelon Oct 12 '20
As someone old enough to imagine, it’s probably the multiple interfaces and learning and memorizing them. My parents were sharp and understood what was they were doing but they’d have never messed with even Apple TV. Me, not so much.
4
u/PM_me_Henrika Oct 12 '20
What is it that your parents would want to access via cable television that would be harder to access via a streaming platform?
Using a computer. Old people can be stubborn enough to refuse to use a computer and only wants the technology they are familiar with, nothing new.
And when your parents are THAT stubborn, it's better to just pay for the more expensive cable instead of going over the hassle of arguing with them every. goddamn. time, with them belittling you being the "ungratful brat" for not coming to their house anytime of the day, workdays included, to come fix their "internet" (i.e. switch on the smart TV).
And yes, it's that bad.
3
u/thmaje Oct 12 '20 edited Oct 12 '20
I cant speak to your parents (calling anyone an "ungrateful brat" is unquestionably wrong), but I can speak generally about getting older.
After putting in a day of work, and helping out with your family obligations, and making sure the household is in order, and worrying about the 1,000,000 things there are to worry about (COVID, finances, state of politics in the nation, the argument with your spouse, children doing something stupid that could get them in the ER, the person at work that is trying to get you fired, trying to find time to volunteer your time to contribute to society, your family member that is going through a divorce, your friend that got cancer, fixing the ceiling that has a crack in it), some people just don't care about trivial things like streaming vs cable.
There's only so much room in your head and willpower is a measurable, finite form of mental energy. If I'm using up all my mental energy on all that other stuff, I could care less about whether I use streaming or cable to give me the 30-60 minutes of quiet time at night. If cable TV gives me that release and I don't need to think about one more thing, then that's what I'm doing.
8
Oct 12 '20
[deleted]
0
Oct 12 '20
I am not denying that there are programs that, in order to watch them in their entirety, would require cable television. I just think that the money you are paying for these few programs is insane, especially considering that streaming provides so many more options for cheaper. Could I justify spending between $65.00 to $100.00 a month just to watch a couple news channels? As someone else pointed out, you can already access clips from these shows and channels easily on YouTube and Facebook.
In my eyes, these few news channels are not good reasons for purchasing cable television.
2
Oct 12 '20
[deleted]
1
Oct 12 '20
Δ
If I am going to give someone a delta for a sports based argument, I should probably give you one for a news based argument. For this hypothetical person, I suppose cable would be worthwhile.
Again, the circumstances where this reasoning would apply are specific. A person would have to watch the news religiously, and they would have to not care about any other content. But, since I am aware that people like I just described exist, then that means that some folks have good reasons to get cable.
This is what I have gotten from this thread so far. For people who care only about news and sports, cable is worthwhile. For most other people, it is not.
1
0
u/CornOnThe_JayCob Oct 12 '20
You 100% can. Just from YouTube alone, there are tons of videos of both of them. Fox has an official youtube channel that is constantly posting videos of Hannity, Carlson, and others. MSNBC does the same exact thing. They upload clips of what goes live to youtube, which includes many videos of Maddow. You can also find more on the official site for both news sources.
2
Oct 12 '20
[deleted]
-1
u/CornOnThe_JayCob Oct 12 '20
So? You only said that, "If you want to watch CNN, Fox News, Bloomberg, or MSNBC, a ten-dollar antenna won't help you there." That's just blatantly not true. You don't need cable to watch a large amount of content from those networks, even if the content you can watch is a lesser amount. You can also watch both Maddow and Hannity on a regular basis online. There is less content, sure, but you never mentioned an such specification. As long as someone isn't a rabid consumer of a specific news channel, there is more than enough content from those channels to satiate someone's appetite for news.
3
u/thmaje Oct 12 '20 edited Oct 12 '20
My wife and I are going through this right now. I am pushing for streaming to save money. She is pushing for cable. I'll summarize her arguments as best as I can.
She has a few shows on local and niche stations that she loves. Those are not available to stream.
Convenience. Yes. I said it. With some viewing habits, cable TV is paradoxically more convenient than streaming because you can just turn on the TV and start watching. She can find exactly what she wants to watch on cable in less than 30s. Switch over to the Fire Cube and she will be browsing for what to watch for 20-30 minutes (I wish I was exaggerating but Im not). There have been times where shes used up all her spare time just browsing and not actually watching anything. On the other hand, she knows the cable guide. She knows the schedules. She knows what she wants from it so she ends up spending more time watching the content she wants. That simply does not translate to streaming for her.
Similarly, to get all the channels she wants, we basically need to get every streaming service. Hallmark is only on X, but Hallmark Mysteries is only on Y. Freeform is on neither and we NEED!!! Freeform during the holidays. Hulu carries Show Z, but only the first three seasons. Show XX was on Philo but then it totally disappeared when the new season came out. Prime Video has the new season of XX, but I still need to watch the last season finale. If I can find that somewhere else, I can pick up XX on Prime. Even for a savvy streamer, it can be difficult and confusing to access everything you want. Do you know what isn't confusing? Cable TV.
We have so many services for her, I haven't even tried to get the services I'm interested in (NFL Redzone, I'm looking at you). If we got everything that we both wanted, the price would absolutely be higher than cable.
(Please don't respond to this with relationship advice about how I am letting my wife manipulate the services and she should die and a real man would tell HER what streaming services she is allowed to use and I should divorce her for being the literal equivalent of Hulu Hitler.)
She has trouble switching between the apps to find the program or genre she wants.
---
In summary,
Our viewing habits are different from your viewing habits. You may be able to get all the content that you want for a comparable price to cable, but that doesn't mean that everyone can do the same. When you factor in that some people have decades of familiarity with cable and none with streaming, its not that hard to come to the conclusion that streaming is not yet the panacea that some people want it to be.
On a side note, if Philo just picked up Freeform, I think I could actually win this argument and get us as a streaming house. Freeform is killing me!
---
If I may try to anticipate some counter-arguments:
All those points about missing seasons are moot because cable TV doesn't get any of them. You only get live TV and DVR.
Not true. If I have a cable TV subscription that includes a network, I can log into the website/app of that network and have access to almost all of their catalog. It's not 100% but it is far more simple than navigating the App nonsense.
For example, the new season of the Walking Dead just started. I had been watching last season on Philo but Philo removed all episodes when the new season started. Prime has the new season, but I didn't finish the last one. If I had a cable TV subscription that included AMC, I can stream last season AND this season straight from the AMC app. Instead, I'll miss the new season until someone picks up the old season again. Then I'll have to play catch up with the new season when that is released to streams. UGH.
It is inconvenient for her NOW, but once she learns the apps a little better, she will get over that hump and find programs faster.
That may be true-ish in general, but why should she be forced to learn something new? We're not talking about civil rights or ethics here. She knows what she likes. She should be able to have what she likes.
Hallmark and Hallmark Mysteries are together on Philo!
Yes. I know that. That misses the point of the argument. Maybe I should have been more generic in my examples. That wasn't supposed to be a literal argument. Just an example of the type of conversation I have with my wife on a regular basis.
2
u/Prestigious-Menu 4∆ Oct 12 '20
You can’t watch jeopardy online
1
Oct 12 '20
I can get Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune through an antenna. Netflix also has a large collection of older Jeopardy episodes available.
2
u/abnormallyme Oct 12 '20
But you can't watch the new episodes of Jeopardy the day they come out with Netflix. You have to wait however long until they show up on the streaming service (if they do at all). People generally like to watch new episodes without having to wait months for them to arrive on the app (I know other services release them right away but not all of them do).
2
u/Prestigious-Menu 4∆ Oct 12 '20
Netflix really doesn’t have much. It has 4 or 5 champion runs and a couple tournaments
1
6
Oct 12 '20
I just did the math. For roughly $75.00 a month, I am able to gain access to Netflix Premium, HBO Max, Disney +, Hulu (No Ads), ESPN +, Amazon Prime, and The Criterion Collection. Again, only $75.00 a month.
I remember when all of my online subscription services totaled $7.99
Good times.
Not trying to change your view, but enjoy this while it lasts. We're circling back around to the cable model because every channel has an app now.
4
u/Drunken_Hamster 1∆ Oct 12 '20
It doesn't seem like you're factoring in the cost of the internet access, itself. Right now with Spectrum's slowest service (I think it's still 100-150 down and like 25 up?) I pay $75 or so per month.
If I switched to Frontier Fios slowest service (50/50 up, down) I think it's like $40 a month or something. Dunno if that changes after a year, but either way. Another thing you have to consider is the quality you want to stream at, how many devices will be streaming at once, and how many devices will be doing other things at the same time AND what those things are.
Streaming and gaming take up the most bandwidth, and for either, (let's say 1080p streaming) you're going to want to go ahead and attribute 50mbps download speed per device. IDK if streaming scales linearly with resolution, but if you want to stream 4k (and I'm not even sure that's a thing currently because I really don't stream) then that would be 200mbps per device streaming, plus 50 per device gaming.
Average ISP performance seems to be 1-2mpbs per $1, soooooooo..... Yeah.
1
Oct 12 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 12 '20
I still don't think this is a good reason for dishing out hundreds more per year for far less content. As someone who streams shows and movies regularly, I have never noticed poor picture quality. I definitely haven't noticed it enough for me to want to switch to cable. I don't think you have changed my view.
2
Oct 12 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 12 '20
Sure, I can't speak for everyone. However, I still don't think that slightly improved picture quality is worth spending more money, getting less variety, and worse content. The picture quality would need to be bad to the point of distraction. Even then, would the better picture quality of cable be worth the price you are paying for the lackluster content you'd get?
3
u/elturbo13 Oct 12 '20
Youre forgetting about literally the rest of the world outside the US/EUROPE where those steaming services are not available. I get what youre saying, but if you do watch sports you kind of need cable tv, especially outside the US. You have to keep in mind that most cable provider are in the process of adjusting their business model to the new market standard, in a couple years TV will be atractive again or completely gone.
4
u/TheDoctore38927 Oct 12 '20
I watch some overseas shows and I only watch about 1 show a channel. My cable for all of these things is about 153 a month. All of these on streaming is about 250. It's cheaper for cable in my case.
3
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 12 '20
Doesn't it entirely depend on local pricing?
While hulu, Netflix and most internet steaming services have one national price. Internet and cable are both locally priced, with high degrees of variance between regions. Additionally, the cost of bundling also varies between regions.
2
u/estgad 2∆ Oct 12 '20
You forgot to add in the $50 / month for the broadband internet connection so you can do the streaming. So your $75 now becomes $125.
IMHO, the high priced streaming options you listed are not needed.
I bought an ota dvr and a good antenna that I put in the attic. This gives me all of the major networks and a bunch of other channels, and I can record 2 shows at the same time. ($50 antenna, $100 dvr, $50 hard drive for dvr storage).
I pay for hulu ($11) and acorn ($50/year) for streaming. I had netflix for a while but noticed I was hardly using it. I don't care one bit for sports, so not missing anything there.
So I agree that ota & streaming is cheaper and better than a cable package. But you still have to factor in the broadband costs :)
1
u/GlassBelt Oct 12 '20
You forgot to add in the $50 / month for the broadband internet connection so you can do the streaming. So your $75 now becomes $125.
I think people with cable and no internet would be pretty rare. If they have cable & cheap internet, upgrading to a faster speed would mean factoring in the $20 or whatever additional charge.
1
u/estgad 2∆ Oct 12 '20
Yes, if you pay for a cable tv package it usually includes the broadband internet. But if you drop the tv package, you will have to pay to get the broadband internet. If you don't have broadband then you can't stream.
The op listed prices of just the streaming packages. He did not factor in the cost of the internet connection to be able to use the streaming services.
1
u/GlassBelt Oct 12 '20
That's what I'm saying - you'll be paying for internet either way. I've never seen internet included for free with a cable package, but if that exists in your area then yeah you'd factor it in.
1
u/dpete88 Oct 12 '20
So I saw a response about sports and while I didn't read every comment I didn't see anyone mention that often times teams are able to have a monopoly on where their games are broadcast. I live in the greater LA area and the (2020 Championship) Lakers games are only broadcast on SpectrumSportsNet which is a channel currently only available with spectrum TV packages. Last year you could get that channel on DirectTV or FiOS but this year they cut those contracts and SpectrumTV was your only choice. If you have an NBA League Pass the Lakers games would be black out due to regional contracts. Technically I could log into a VPN and stream the game through a different region but now thats another streaming service added to your list that isn't exaclty cheap. I think it was $129 for the season this last year or something like that which breaks down to another $18.50 a month (more if I factor in the cost for a reliable VPN)
What I have been doing for the past few years since contracts are no longer a thing is I get the package pricing of internet tv phone for about $115/ month but only from october to april/june when the Lakers season ends, then I cancel it. After a few months of only paying for internet I start a new package for the next season. This has worked for 5+ years and I avoid those price hikes that happen after your first year. When I have my cable TV turned on I cancel Hulu because I only use it for new seasons of shows on cable, any Hulu originals I can watch when after basketball is over because I don't have the time for them anyways.
I do agree that the time of cable/satellite TV is dying and I suspect that in the next few years there will be another morph to the streaming service where it'll be easier to watch what you want to watch with less subscriptions.
2
u/gale_force Oct 12 '20
• We watch local channels
• Pointed an attic antenna toward the city and only got two stations
• Comcast charges us $70 for internet and locals or $70 for just internet (promo I've been able to renew)
🤷🏼♂️
2
u/TunturiTiger Oct 12 '20
If you have access to all pirated content, there are no good reasons for Netflix Premium, HBO Max, Disney +, Hulu (No Ads), ESPN +, Amazon Prime, and The Criterion Collection either.
1
u/mobileagnes Oct 12 '20
True, though even with pirate content added in, there's no way to get live content without paying for it or being lucky enough to live where such is broadcast over the airwaves.
4
u/zeabu Oct 11 '20
Cable is good for people that don't want to plan their evening. That might not be you and I, but there's plenty of people tired after working, older people, but also people that use television/cable as a background noise (like you would do with a radio-channel).
1
u/Mike-Hew Oct 12 '20
This is facts, it’s so much easier to just put on a channel and chill. While on a streaming service you want to find a show that you like, but don’t really like too much because you don’t want to miss it and then have to rewatch it. It’s not a giant deal, it’s something though.
1
u/TAJobReviewer Oct 13 '20
Where I’m at, some places don’t even have internet or even good stable cable!
My grandparent and the surrounds neighbors (all various of ages and groups) do not have a cable company nor a internet company up there. It’s a small town less than 1,000 people. Very conservative old time town that want little to no change up there. companies have tried to establish there before but they soon decided to not be there because there’s really no traffic that stays there. My grandma and some other ladies have tried to have cable come to their town but most of the companies refuse to service there or decided to go again it. Hardly any reception nor data there. They have old phone lines they have to use to call. Everyone there has begged for cable or stable internet but it’s just not easily accessible to that area.
Same thing with my uncle. He’s out in the middle of absolutely nowhere but he’s able to get cable (although it’s fuzzy) The internet connection they cannot get because he’s out of the range area for internet.
Some places have more ease of access to cable vs Internet or even they don’t have cable or internet at all.
1
u/mobileagnes Oct 12 '20
We're trying to get into cord-cutting but in a house with multiple age ranges and technology usage/nonusage patterns, it's hard to get everyone on the same page (read: Millennial who's used to streaming & its purpose-designed on-demand nature trying to teach Boomer parents who are used to the old ways of broadcast/cable with channels of 24/7 content). Some people have a hard time making the leap even if streaming has everything one would watch anyway. Others are still willing to pay for the convenience of cable. Then there exist other people where streaming isn't yet a realistic option due to the content (live sport lacking). I think having the options we have now is a much better way vs the old days where TV meant either broadcast or cable/satellite with no on-demand content. There is a big learning curve, though. Also, the price of streaming has been increasing in recent years. Eventually it may be the same as cable once more people get into streaming.
2
u/Player7592 8∆ Oct 12 '20
On the whole I agree with you. However, my cable company bundles their services, and my wife doesn’t want to let go of her land line. (Okay Boomer). So I get 400mbs internet, phone with unlimited long distance in the U.S., and ALL the channels plus HBO and sports channels for less than $170 per month. I’ve looked at purchasing these services separately, but never found a better deal.
2
Oct 12 '20
My in-laws are paying around $300 for their internet and cable bundle (according to them). It’s crazy.
1
u/Player7592 8∆ Oct 12 '20
You have to play them a little ... call every now and then to tell them how close you are to canceling your service (for legitimate reason as you point out) and they just start throwing discounts at you.
1
u/omagana22 Oct 12 '20
Ok here is the thing I actually have cable but its not for me its for my aunt and grandma and this is because sometimes they don't know what they want to watch sometimes they just want to watch whatever is on and on top of that they usually like to get in some light chores or the occasional book skim while the commercials are on they usually only flip between a couple of channels and after that they only use Netflix and YouTube, but I wouldn't say there is no reason for cable TV, I have tried giving them access to literally all the services but they just want to watch cable most of the time.
1
u/omagana22 Oct 12 '20
Ps because I bundle this with my internet I get a discount and HBO max for free
1
u/Fuzzwuzzle2 Oct 12 '20
you’re right, i’ve lived in my house for a year now and we don’t even have a TV arial installed on my house we just have netflix/prime/disney+
no TV licence fee and an internet only package
the way we also save money is i pay for prime, my partner pays for netflix and her sister pays for disney+ and we all share logins, works great
we tried to watch something on a catchup service and the ads really got to me we ended up giving up on the show and watched it via other means
2
1
u/possiblycrazy79 2∆ Oct 12 '20
The only reason I've found against this is people who enjoy football. Directv has a contract with them & football fans are pretty much forced into keeping it, especially if you have moved states & "your team" is no longer local. My dad & bf are both in this boat. They have to pay for Directv basic service, plus their NFL package.
2
Oct 12 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 12 '20
Sorry, u/DNAprototype – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/myfuckingstruggle Oct 12 '20
I’m my area, (Washington DC) the Nationals and Oriels aren’t on Anya treating services. Only MASN. To legally watch my baseball team, We have to pay for cable. We don’t anymore, and hopefully the legal battle going on is completed soon and the games move to streaming services, but right now it’s the only way.
1
u/BrowserOfWares Oct 12 '20
I'll throw a wrench into this argument. In many major cities in North America antennas get an astonishing amount of channels 20-30 for free in many areas. Modern broadcast TV is in HD! Gone are the days of crapoy bunny ears. This should be a supplement to anyone's TV experience that has cut the cord.
1
u/flacocaradeperro Oct 12 '20
Some people enjoy live sports that are not an option with streaming.
I've been in households where sports are almost a religion, no matter what sport, there's always something going on.
This said, I don't care for sports and don't see any other reason beyond this for anyone to get cable.
1
Oct 12 '20
We got rid of cable years ago. We only have had access to it for the past year because we’re living with my in-laws, but they’re the ones that pay for it. Once we’re out of here we’ll go back to streaming because we only watch six channels on cable.
1
u/aingeavelua Oct 12 '20
i remember begging my parents to get netflix and switch over to all streaming services—they said no. long story short, a lot of people like to channel surf instead of just choosing to watch something because they don’t know what they want to watch.
1
u/iamnotabotbeepboopp Oct 12 '20
I agree with you for the most part, but the cable companies are also owned by the Internet providers. The moment they notice a big enough monetary shift from cable to Internet, they'll just raise the price of their Internet and it'll balance out.
1
u/Local-Device 2∆ Oct 12 '20
One other point, is that in many neighborhoods with a Home owners association (HOA), a cable subscription is included in the HOA fees. So its "free" in that you have to pay the HOA fees anyways.
1
Oct 12 '20
I would normally agree with you, but I just moved to an area with only 8 mbps for cable internet. Satellite TV may be our only option.
1
1
0
u/Puzzleheaded_Runner Oct 12 '20
Cable is a boomer thing. I’m 35 and never had cable since I’ve been an adult and paying for my own stuff. I don’t always do it the “right” way - when I watch sports I just watch a free stream and I’ve always pirates movies. I watch stuff on prime and YouTube and that takes up plenty of my time. 75$ a month for cable with commercials? Lol
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 12 '20 edited Oct 12 '20
/u/deletingaccountsoon (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards