The cut-off point
Had a conversation with my son-in-law a couple days ago regarding his interest in discontinuing cable TV service. His argument is pretty sound....they can get network TV over-the-air, and most everything else they watch is available either through a streaming service or via DVD.
In my totally unbiased and non-expert opinion, this is an admirable and worthwhile objective. Unfortunately, though, there are a lot of reasons why I question whether it will work.
Easy to look at your cable bill and then need to reattach your eyebrows to your forehead. I don't know anyone who doesn't pay what appears to be an obscene amount in order to receive what Bruce Springsteen called "57 Channels and Nothing On." Why, even my mother-in-law, who lives in a very small town in western Kentucky and has no pay channels, no DVR box, no high-definition service or anything "extra" pays a ridiculous sum each month for so-so channel reception.
So, you have to ask yourself, what's important about MY cable TV package? For me, the quick and easy answer is live sporting events. I LOVE the Cincinnati Reds, and LOVE the Kentucky Wildcats, at least their basketball team (football, not so much this year). Without cable, I wouldn't be able to see most of Kentucky's basketball games, as they'll appear a LOT on ESPN this season, and would not be able to see the Reds but for a couple of times without either having access to Fox Sports Ohio via cable or buying the Major League Baseball TV package for $130 per season (and that ALSO requires you to buy hardware to receive that transmission).
Oh, and did you know that you have to have a broadband internet connection to do most of this streaming that may replace some of your lost cable programming? If you have DSL or another slower internet service, I understand it won't work.
Believe me, I don't like the idea of paying through the nose to watch television, but when you consider the alternatives (satellite or the method I described above), you'll still pay a fair amount to watch stuff on TV.
Unless you want to just stop watching. Anyone in favor of that? Show of hands?
I didn't think so.
In my totally unbiased and non-expert opinion, this is an admirable and worthwhile objective. Unfortunately, though, there are a lot of reasons why I question whether it will work.
Easy to look at your cable bill and then need to reattach your eyebrows to your forehead. I don't know anyone who doesn't pay what appears to be an obscene amount in order to receive what Bruce Springsteen called "57 Channels and Nothing On." Why, even my mother-in-law, who lives in a very small town in western Kentucky and has no pay channels, no DVR box, no high-definition service or anything "extra" pays a ridiculous sum each month for so-so channel reception.
So, you have to ask yourself, what's important about MY cable TV package? For me, the quick and easy answer is live sporting events. I LOVE the Cincinnati Reds, and LOVE the Kentucky Wildcats, at least their basketball team (football, not so much this year). Without cable, I wouldn't be able to see most of Kentucky's basketball games, as they'll appear a LOT on ESPN this season, and would not be able to see the Reds but for a couple of times without either having access to Fox Sports Ohio via cable or buying the Major League Baseball TV package for $130 per season (and that ALSO requires you to buy hardware to receive that transmission).
Oh, and did you know that you have to have a broadband internet connection to do most of this streaming that may replace some of your lost cable programming? If you have DSL or another slower internet service, I understand it won't work.
Believe me, I don't like the idea of paying through the nose to watch television, but when you consider the alternatives (satellite or the method I described above), you'll still pay a fair amount to watch stuff on TV.
Unless you want to just stop watching. Anyone in favor of that? Show of hands?
I didn't think so.
Comments
Post a Comment