Who still pays for the Weather Network? This absolutely has to be the low hanging fruit of cable right? Forget that your weather gathering sources with the internet are legion, does anyone actually watch this station for more than 30 seconds?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
For ESPN, much of it is due to people cutting cable completely. It's also worth noting that Comcast has placed ESPN into their Digital Preferred tier. If you just go for their basic cable tier(s) at about half the monthly cost, you don't get ESPN or ESPN2, much less ESPN News, ESPNU, deportes, etc., which are all part of the extra sports package.
The daytime programming is seriously Jerry Springer level garbage. It's brutal.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Absolutely. Also anything to do with ESS EEE SEE and even Johnny Manziel there for a bit. ESPN is so out of touch.
It's a three way tie between Stephen A Smith, Bayless and Rovell for who has made that network the shittiest over the last few years.
The thing is there's no real alternative. NBC sports doesn't do much of anything aside from put on the games, and Fox Sports One aside from Jay and Dan is a shitshow.
Golden era was late 90s/early 00s ABC College Football.
God, I miss those days. I can still hum the theme music.
ESPN is SO out of touch - just the worst. The only programming worth a damn anymore is Pardon the InterruPTIon, 30 for 30, and Baseball Tonight. When they were bought out by ABC, the network's tone shifted dramatically. Entertaining SportsCenter anchors were pushed out by CNN rejects who can only contort their facial expressions into fake, concerning stares. And the transition to Live! has been the most cringeworthy affair. What was once fun now reeks of trying too hard to presents sports as "the news." We used to be able to get the highlights of every game for all the major sports in 50 minutes, with time for what was a silly Top 10. Now, all we get is idiotic journalism, far too many analysts' and reporters' take on one topic, and debates. I spend more time digging for sports information than I did as a kid or teenager, and somehow I have less of a feel for individual players and teams. I'm sick of being forced to rely on far too many analysts' and former players' opinions.
I am hoping that all television goes to a stream a la carte method. It would free up so much bandwidth for internet if the cable companies were not pushing hundredes of channels across the pipeline even if there are no viewers. I watch about an hour of TV a day and Michigan games on saturday. I am not ever going to pay $80 a month for that.
I like that antenna design, very cool. I read on some blog by an obsessed TV electronics person who tested antenna designs, and the old RCA bowtie antenna worked better than any of the new "HDTV" antennae tested. There's no such thing as an HDTV antenna, it's just an antenna.
I have used the good ole rabbit ears when camping or somewhere without a real antenna. The HDTV antenna term was created to sell new antennas to people during the digital transistion.
i just now stumbled across this post, bookmarking it becasue I'm fed up with cable/satellite price gouging.
As others have noted, much of this is cable companies offering "no sports" package options. Time Warner did so in New York, I think it cuts at least 10 bucks off the bill (ESPN is about $5/month).
Any suggestions for an internet only option for a cottage? I don't want cable or any bundled stations - just internet at a reasonable speed to support wifi for 4-5 phones and stream netflix, etc.
First, check out the networks website of the shows you like to watch. Most website cast the shows that are on cable.
Second, try hulu for additional free offerings.
Third, Amazon prime is probably the best offering since it provides bundled media services along with free shipping for merchandise.
About 95% of your offerings will be on these three services. You need to either purchase a roku or build a HTPC. I have a PC hooked to my TV and its the first thing that I turn on before the TV.
Fourth, ESPN3 has offerings for many cable providers which gets you free sports streaming. The NCAA tournament is always free!
Fifth, get a nice digital antenna for local channel which could include sports.
You may have to struggle for some offerings but you will be happy you are only paying $45 a month for media content (and $99 for Prime/year) rather than $100-$200 a month.
Your comments regarding content are great and much appreciated. I still need wifi. We have Verizon for phone service, but hotspot options do not seem practical given the data required to stream. I still don't understand how to get a good wifi signal without a bundled package.
Shocked people still pay for cable! I cut the cord 10 years ago. I knew I wasn't getting the value for what I was paying and I didn't feel like sitting idle just to watch so I could get value.
The same line is bringing the information why pay for a redundant service?
Cable is overpriced. Internet speeds are overpriced. Cell phone service is horribly overpriced. The only reason that these prices haven't been cut is because the consumer insists on paying them while being stubborn about finding alternatives.
I quit cable a few years ago. The only thing I miss is live sports, which frees up some of my weekend time. I watch the games with M-TAC (alumni association) at a local sports bar. It's more fun that way anyway, we sing the victors and talk about random Michigan shit that I can't do with my Auburn almna wife. My kids love it too.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I just can't do it... must have Fox Sports Detroit for Tigers and Wings games plus beIN/NBCSN for soccer. Also, even a good stream can't compare to watching sports on a 50'' HDTV (especially hockey).
My brothers come over to my house and can't tell that the Wings (or Habs, Leafs, Kings, hawks, Jets or anyone else who may be playing that night) game on my 50" TV isn't sent from cable. Good stream + $35 chromecast = very little noticable difference.
Cut the cable last week and bought an XBMC Android Box. It's a pain in the ass to use but I get every North American and European sport I can think of. It's been a beauty so far.
about the Android box, sounds interesting...
There are tons available on Amazon. There's an upfront fee of around $100-150 depending on which box you select to purchase. I get all the Sky Sports, BT Sports and ITV Sports channels to watch the Premier League. I also get BeIN Sports to watch La Liga and Serie A.
I get the Big Ten Network, Pac-12 Network, SEC Network and all of the family of ESPN channels (that's a big deal since I'm in Canada and its not available on cable).
On top of that I get a shitload of movie channels for the wifey... with no monthly fee.
Pretty happy with it so far. Only drawback is the navigation and searching for some channels that are hidden in sub sections.
All my buddys bought the Matricom G Box...they swear by it. I have XBMC/Kodi on my CPU and its awesome for movies/TV shows. Only draw back now is I dont have internet...Comcast doesnt provide my street and I have to use a hot spot.
So does anyone have any Comcast hook ups for service?
http://www.amazon.com/Matricom-G-Box-Quad-Octo-Android/dp/B00QHLSKOE/re…
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
SEC SEC.... not
This isn't really an ESPN-specific problem. Cable subscribers are shrinking in general, but there are compelling enough reasons to keep watching ESPN for a decent chunk of the audience (live sporting events, mostly); I suspect a large portion of cable owners have no idea what channel HLN or Food Network is on their dial.
Again, I'm all for people having more choice in how they spend their money, but every one of these discussions just assumes that the companies that provide you with both cable and internet (which is how the vast majority of people get their media - via a cable/ISP conglomeration) are going to be happy to give up the $60/month you pay for cable and just keep giving you semi-speed internet at $50/month. That isn't going to happen, and while bringing on Rutgers and (to a lesser extent) Maryland probably isn't going to be a cash cow, the beating of the dead horse around here about it is getting tiresome.
Sling is a great idea, but (a) I've seen enough of these types of companies raise their rates when lawsuits start mounting/get market saturation, and (b) you still have a limited enough slate of channels that I could see missing coverage.
I have Charter internet without cable tv ($40). Stream2watch.me gives me most televised games and USA live tv (including BTN, ESPN all flavors and MSNBC). I rarely have to go to a sports bar to watch anything. Ads and malware sites can besiege you. Use Adblock Plus and don't click on anything except your choice of streams and ignore anything that tries to download or any warnings that you need to upgrade something to run your program .
For local tv, you can't beat Mohu. They make military antennae. I've had the amplified HD Leaf for 3 years and it's great. They say 50 mile radius, mine goes 60 in the flatlands where I live. the limitations are that it will service only 1 tv at a time, maybe more on the same setting with a splitter (I've never tried this.) It is about $79.
Newer models are the Curve, an upgrade to the Leaf, and the omni-directional Sky which will service all the households tvs and can be mounted in the attic, your roof or tower. I'm going to upgrade for the Sk very soon. (The Sky is $149 on their site or $100 for a scratch-and-dent model.)
Hey - I just saw an ad for the friggin' cornhole world championships tomorrow on ESPN2. Come on - who doesn't want that programming!