After talking with WideOpenWest a few months ago I got them down to $75 but since then it rose to over $100!! :shootgun: This is for basic cable/DVR and 2mip internet. :jawdrop Needless to say, I was annoyed so last month we cut the cord - so to speak. I looked into Comcast, Dish, etc but thought they were just as bad as wow. :eekout I decided to buy the Roku and move the wireless downstairs. For cable, we subscribed to Aereo. Its about 15 channels and then we use Netflix for some cable shows we like. The Roku is a nifty little box. Its remote is also a game control and wireless headset. We have Pandora as one of the channels and curious to see how far the headset will work. Also bought our own cable modem which takes $5 off the bill. One time setup was $175 but last month the TV & 15mip internet bill was $28!! :cheers OMG that was the first time in years its been below $75. Netflix is $15/month and Aereo adds another $8/month. Another nice feature of Aereo is the 20 hour DVR on the cloud so we can record and watch the show just about anywhere. An additional $4/month will double the DVR and give the ability to watch a show while taping another.
Also finding that I spend much less time being a couch potato and more TIME FOR World of Warcraft!!! Hooo-ahhhh :msu
Cool! I tried Aereo for awhile too - it's a nice service. I hope it doesn't get killed by the cable giants.
I am waiting for Aereo to be available in the Philadelphia area. The only thing that is keeping me from cutting the cord is Game of Thrones. Once the season is over, I will make the move.
Quote from: Rico on March 15, 2014, 05:37:40 AM
Cool! I tried Aereo for awhile too - it's a nice service. I hope it doesn't get killed by the cable giants.
Yeah, the cable companies and even networks are pretty upset but my guess they will find some compromise. Hopefully it will not cost subscribers their remaining limbs. We don't have many left.
Aereo doesn't really affect cable, but broadcasters are upset and CBS is considering going strictly to a cable station to avoid Aereo stealing it's broadcast signal.
Would totally do aereo, but they stop just before my county line. So close! Hardly see their service as stealing the over the air signal, though...
Still surviving on Netflix (binge viewing older shows), Hulu (first run prime time), and amazon (Big Bang theory).
Interesting article..
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2014/02/aereo-vs-the-broadcasters-6-possible.html?page=all (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2014/02/aereo-vs-the-broadcasters-6-possible.html?page=all)
Laurie and I subscribed to Aero during the football season and also during the Olympics. We loath commercials and so it is not a service we would use on a regular basis. Maybe we would if you could use the DVR feature without having to exit fullscreen to advance forward to avoid commercials. Personally I feel that Aero has the right to "lease" me an antenna. If I am willing to pay for that lease because I don't want to hassle with installing my own outdoor antenna then what is the difference? I hope the courts rule in favor of Aero because if they don't it will only help expose how deep in the pockets the cable companies have been able to seat themselves within American politics. There is only one way I will subscribe to a cable or satellite TV subscriber again and that is if they allow a "limited" service for a certain dollar amount. For instance if I could select 15 channels of my choice for $30.00 a month I would do it in a heart beat, but as long as they make me pay for all their other crap to get the ten channels I want? No way!
I subscribe to Netfix and am also an Amazon Prime customer (re-evaluating that now with their latest $20 price increase) and have not felt like we lack for anything to watch. When we dropped cable several years back and took the $60.00 a month, plus the $30.00 we usually spent on DVDs anyway, and invested that money in building our library we now have more films and TV shows then we could probably watch in the rest of our lifetime. And guess what? Outside of the few intro commercials on some movies we don't have to put up with all that anymore.
Now having said that if Aero survives the cable conglomerates I will likely subscribe again in September when the regular football season starts. I'm not a fan of pre-season games and so August is out.
Kevin
I remember when cable used to offer a limited basic cable for $15/month - about 10-15 channels I think. No dvr and a descent speed internet was maybe another $40. If the courts decide against aereo, we only lose $8/month and go back to the digital antenna and buy the frickin 100hr dvr for about $200. Cable companies do not seem to understand that consumers have a choice and one of them is cut the cord. Wow is giving us internet for $30/month for one year and in 12-months and they can either extend that rate another 12 months, make it permanent or I take my business elsewhere. Its like the cable think they have you by your genitals when its really the reverse. :) Power to the people baby! :metallica:
Quote from: Ktrek on March 15, 2014, 09:18:48 PM
Laurie and I subscribed to Aero during the football season and also during the Olympics. We loath commercials and so it is not a service we would use on a regular basis. Maybe we would if you could use the DVR feature without having to exit fullscreen to advance forward to avoid commercials. Personally I feel that Aero has the right to "lease" me an antenna. If I am willing to pay for that lease because I don't want to hassle with installing my own outdoor antenna then what is the difference? I hope the courts rule in favor of Aero because if they don't it will only help expose how deep in the pockets the cable companies have been able to seat themselves within American politics. There is only one way I will subscribe to a cable or satellite TV subscriber again and that is if they allow a "limited" service for a certain dollar amount. For instance if I could select 15 channels of my choice for $30.00 a month I would do it in a heart beat, but as long as they make me pay for all their other crap to get the ten channels I want? No way!
I subscribe to Netfix and am also an Amazon Prime customer (re-evaluating that now with their latest $20 price increase) and have not felt like we lack for anything to watch. When we dropped cable several years back and took the $60.00 a month, plus the $30.00 we usually spent on DVDs anyway, and invested that money in building our library we now have more films and TV shows then we could probably watch in the rest of our lifetime. And guess what? Outside of the few intro commercials on some movies we don't have to put up with all that anymore.
Now having said that if Aero survives the cable conglomerates I will likely subscribe again in September when the regular football season starts. I'm not a fan of pre-season games and so August is out.
Kevin
Aereo isn't having issues with cable companies only the terrestrial broadcast wings. If they were going up against cable, I'm sure they would have found some way to crush it before the Supreme Court. Hell, considering the 4 billion that cable companies pay broadcasters for re-transmission rights, it would be in the better interest of the cable providers if Aereo is a success. That way that can piggyback the concept and not pay for the usage rights.
Aereo currently unavailable - thank you scotus - nothing supreme here. This is progress?? Good thing I got the antenna a few days ago but all my recordings are stuck in limbo. frackers :smilie_bleh: :wallbash:
Yeah, that really stinks. I wanted to get the service here in Philadelphia.
I think this just shows how deep the pockets are of the major cable companies and start ups like Aero just cannot fight the big guys. The Supreme court did not have the interests of free economy and the American public in mind at all in this decision. Very disappointing! No pro football for me this season. Oh well. :(
Kevin
I'm actually with the supreme court on this. This has nothing to do with fighting the big guys, Aereo thought they would be clever and bypass established broadcast and copyright laws. At the end of the day, they were using broadcast transmissions without wanting to pay the fee, but while charging the consumer. To put it in perspective, it was no different than creating a company that broadcasts and records satellite music or movies and charging for that while not paying the content providers.
Also, this has zero to do with cable companies. They would have profited from a ruling in Aereo's favor. Cable companies and Satellite providers actually pay the broadcast companies to have the channels in their line up. The cable companies didn't have a dog in this fight and stealing no matter how creatively it's done is never in the interest of free economy.
If I understand Aereo - I thought you are in effect just renting a 'remote' antenna in their data center - like a remotely connected digital antenna. What was the networks objection? Did this prevent them from some sort of targeted advertising?
I don't agree with Chris/X above - this isn't the same as someone recording satellite radio. Satellite is not broadcast publicly for free. You have to pay a fee. All Aereo was doing was taking free broadcast tv and offering a cloud based antenna and recording service to their customers. All the commercials were still in the broadcasts. I tested it for three months and it was no different than if I had my own antenna and a DVR. Was Aereo being a bit tricky/inventive - definitely. But, in my opinion this is a case of the established companies having too much power and control. TV is heading in this direction to a much more self-serve model and broadcasters better learn to accept that idea and find a way to work in that arena.
I am not sure I understand the network's objections - since as you say the commercial content is still being delivered to the end user - just as if they were using a locally installed digital antenna.
Quote from: Bromptonboy on June 29, 2014, 07:02:30 AM
I am not sure I understand the network's objections - since as you say the commercial content is still being delivered to the end user - just as if they were using a locally installed digital antenna.
I think it comes down to them thinking that someone else is redistributing their content and they "think" they are not making money off it. But this is the same naive attitude that the movie & music industry had about selling or streaming digital content. In a way, Aereo put more eyes on their commercials - especially in more remote areas or with people that live in say an apartment where an antenna might not be possible. Silly, greedy people.
Right - since Aereo is only relaying the content which the networks are already distributing over the air with commercials. Not like they are editing out commercials or adding their own. Just a cloud based antenna. I can see the cable companies not particularly liking this idea - but not the networks.
Quote from: X on June 28, 2014, 09:23:25 PM
I'm actually with the supreme court on this. This has nothing to do with fighting the big guys, Aereo thought they would be clever and bypass established broadcast and copyright laws. At the end of the day, they were using broadcast transmissions without wanting to pay the fee, but while charging the consumer. To put it in perspective, it was no different than creating a company that broadcasts and records satellite music or movies and charging for that while not paying the content providers.
Also, this has zero to do with cable companies. They would have profited from a ruling in Aereo's favor. Cable companies and Satellite providers actually pay the broadcast companies to have the channels in their line up. The cable companies didn't have a dog in this fight and stealing no matter how creatively it's done is never in the interest of free economy.
So, you're position on this then is that if Aaron's Furniture rents me an HD antenna and a DVR for $8.99 a month they are in violation of broadcast copyright laws? What difference does the size of the antenna make? and what difference is it if the antenna I rent is 5 ft long in my attic or two inches in a server room in downtown Dallas? I achieve the exact same results. It seems to me that it should then be illegal to use anything that allows you access to free airwaves. Who loses here? The advertisers on the local TV stations? No...their audience is now larger. The local TV stations who are already broadcasting their signal? No! The only potential loser is the cable and satellite companies who see the loss of their very expensive service to a company that was providing an economical (cheap) alternative.
Quote from: Ktrek on June 29, 2014, 09:29:39 AM
Quote from: X on June 28, 2014, 09:23:25 PM
I'm actually with the supreme court on this. This has nothing to do with fighting the big guys, Aereo thought they would be clever and bypass established broadcast and copyright laws. At the end of the day, they were using broadcast transmissions without wanting to pay the fee, but while charging the consumer. To put it in perspective, it was no different than creating a company that broadcasts and records satellite music or movies and charging for that while not paying the content providers.
Also, this has zero to do with cable companies. They would have profited from a ruling in Aereo's favor. Cable companies and Satellite providers actually pay the broadcast companies to have the channels in their line up. The cable companies didn't have a dog in this fight and stealing no matter how creatively it's done is never in the interest of free economy.
So, you're position on this then is that if Aaron's Furniture rents me an HD antenna and a DVR for $8.99 a month they are in violation of broadcast copyright laws? What difference does the size of the antenna make? and what difference is it if the antenna I rent is 5 ft long in my attic or two inches in a server room in downtown Dallas? I achieve the exact same results. It seems to me that it should then be illegal to use anything that allows you access to free airwaves. Who loses here? The advertisers on the local TV stations? No...their audience is now larger. The local TV stations who are already broadcasting their signal? No! The only potential loser is the cable and satellite companies who see the loss of their very expensive service to a company that was providing an economical (cheap) alternative.
Aereo is rebroadcasting copyrighted material. Broadcasters are not getting paid for redistribution. Cable and satellite are paying the fees. Aereo wasn't.
Like it or not. CBS was pretty clear that they would shift to a fully cable station and cease over the air transmissions to protect their content. The difference is that Aereo is charging you to broadcast their content to bypass the solution that the networks have already provided. You can get their content from Hulu or from their own website.
Again, Cable and Satellite have no dog in this fight. Had Aereo won, it would have established precedence for bypassing the broadcast fees and allowed the cable and satellite companies to pocket an additional six bucks or so per users, I believe that this is the current leasing free to access all of the "free" networks.
You want to see this in terms of winners and losers, but it's not about winners and losers. It's about broadcasters saying enough is enough. You say that the fee is pretty cheap and it is for some people, but some people still can only afford free tv. When CBS threatens to pull their network instead of letting their content get taken, then this becomes much bigger than a few people wanting to pay for Aereo. It becomes one or more fewer tv stations for those people that only have free tv.
I spent quite some time looking into this case and the possible ramifications and when weighed against potential risks, there was only one position to have.
Cable and satellite had nothing at all to fear from Aereo. If someone only wanted the local stations, they wouldn't have cable or satellite. If someone was only getting Cable or Satellite for the local stations, they are probably a bit foolish.
http://www.cnet.com/news/cbs-chief-says-network-could-go-all-internet-if-aereo-wins/ (http://www.cnet.com/news/cbs-chief-says-network-could-go-all-internet-if-aereo-wins/)
Still don't agree. Aereo did exactly what a Slingbox or a Tivo plus an antenna can do. Record over the air content and allow you to watch it when you want.
You cord cutters might want to look into this...
http://itvmediaplayer.com/ (http://itvmediaplayer.com/)
Here's a review...not that great - a little scammy
http://www.uberreview.com/2012/09/itv-media-player-free-premium-tv-review.htm (http://www.uberreview.com/2012/09/itv-media-player-free-premium-tv-review.htm)
I think eventually most channels will be services like hulu which we can get on the roku.
HBO announced stand alone service (presumably HBO Go subscription or something similar) untethered from cable packages starting in 2015. Pretty exciting news for all you cord cutters.
Quote from: Jobydrone on October 15, 2014, 09:42:32 AM
HBO announced stand alone service (presumably HBO Go subscription or something similar) untethered from cable packages starting in 2015. Pretty exciting news for all you cord cutters.
Wow! That was the last piece of the puzzle for me. Can you imagine what Comcast and the other cable providers must be doing to try and stop this?
Quote from: Bromptonboy on October 15, 2014, 11:08:33 AM
Quote from: Jobydrone on October 15, 2014, 09:42:32 AM
HBO announced stand alone service (presumably HBO Go subscription or something similar) untethered from cable packages starting in 2015. Pretty exciting news for all you cord cutters.
Wow! That was the last piece of the puzzle for me. Can you imagine what Comcast and the other cable providers must be doing to try and stop this?
probably nothing because they are projecting it to cost more than netflix. If you are paying for hbo, netflix, and hulu, you are already paying cable prices, it's not a threat to cable since it will probably be cheaper on cable packages.
If the cable companies would allow packages where you can select say ten channels for a reasonable price they would regain my business. I'd pay maybe $20 a month for my choice of ten channels. Until then I'm satisfied with streaming content only. I haven't had TV for close to ten years now I guess and I don't miss it one bit. If you guys saw the library I have amassed by taking my cable money and investing it in DVDs and Blu-Rays you would be amazed how large a collection you can achieve and have what you want to watch when you want to watch it.
Kevin
YEs, with ala'carte channel selection I would stay. I only use about maybe 20 channels - as you mentioned.
Not to be outdone by HBO:
http://deadline.com/2014/10/cbs-launches-subscription-streaming-service-852895/ (http://deadline.com/2014/10/cbs-launches-subscription-streaming-service-852895/)
Interesting option since CBS owns the Star Trek franchise and quite a few other good shows like NCIS. Hmmmm.... Does live streaming mean I could watch the Cowboy games the rest of the season? I guess I could try the one week free trial and find out.
More on the CBS streaming deal thing here:
http://trekmovie.com/2014/10/16/cbs-launches-subscription-streaming-service-including-every-episode-of-star-trek/ (http://trekmovie.com/2014/10/16/cbs-launches-subscription-streaming-service-including-every-episode-of-star-trek/)
P.S. I'm not quite sure all this a la carte way of things will be good in the long run.
Obviously if a person was going to have to individually subscribe to all the separate networks CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX etc. this would not be good for the consumer. However, if Turner Classic Movie Channel and Fox Movie Channel were to go to a streaming service I'd pay $5.99 easily for each. I could care less about any of the other channels. Most of the content for on demand at CBS is already available either on Netflix or Amazon. Speaking of Amazon they again screwed up another order. Last Saturday I ordered a book that was shown as "in stock" and "Prime" and it's not going to arrive until late October. I asked why in live chat and the woman who helped me only offered an apology and said it's on backorder. I don't like that Amazon doesn't even communicate to let you know if they can't meet their obligation unless you contact them. The item I ordered was intended for a gift and won't be on time. She suggested I buy it from one of the vendors instead. What???
Kevin
I doubt if I would go for a CBS streaming package - but I would buy CBS if offered alacarte selection by my cable company.
The HBO Go I will be all over. Syfy would probably get me as well.