Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

OT - Cutting Cable

Just added Stirr, the Sinclair Broadcasting streaming app (free). Supposed to offer their local stations plus some. I don't think there's a Sinclair station in Des Moines anymore though. Also, in operation so far, it seems laggy and pixelates (I don't get that from any other streaming that I do).
 
Cyclonepride said:
Just added Stirr, the Sinclair Broadcasting streaming app (free). Supposed to offer their local stations plus some. I don't think there's a Sinclair station in Des Moines anymore though. Also, in operation so far, it seems laggy and pixelates (I don't get that from any other streaming that I do).
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Sinclair who dictated that all of their stations had to put a specific "slant" on certain news pieces to always paint the current President in a positive spin (aka actual fake news)? If so, I think I'll be skipping that app.

Edit - yes, it is Sinclair.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: wxman1 and Cyclonepride
jdcyclone19 said:
I didn't really notice any quality drop with YTTV, Hulu or PSVue . It might be 5 seconds behind the radio or live tv, though. Not worth enough to stick with dish or directv. If you have solid wifi, there is not really any issue.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the info
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic
ISUguy said:
I called Dish with the intent to cancel and go to YTTV. Guy made a point that sounded legit but wondered if any of you had experience with this....he asked if I had watched a sporting event over a streaming service. I had not. He said the quality of the broadcast would often be lower quality due to the stream (streaming has variables such as signal to the house, WiFi strength, number of people drawing off of the stream, etc.). Thought there may be some merit to this point. We are used to sharp HD quality for watching games. How much of a drop in quality would I expect in general watching football games via a service such as YTTV?
Click to expand...

I have used PS Vue to this point. I don't' notice any significant quality issues. Are their minor bugs in the system, yes. But typically I don't notice the difference if there is any in the quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic
Cable beats streaming on quality 100 times out of 100. But with fast internet (100mb or more) it's really not too far apart

It's just not even close to competing on price. We split YTTV 3 ways with others for $17 a month ($49.99/3). 86% lower than my prior mediacom cable bill ($120).
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic
jdcyclone19 said:
I didn't really notice any quality drop with YTTV, Hulu or PSVue . It might be 5 seconds behind the radio or live tv, though. Not worth enough to stick with dish or directv. If you have solid wifi, there is not really any issue.
Click to expand...

My only complaint about YTTV is the sound is not Dolby Digital yet.
 
jdcyclone19 said:
Agreed. I use to be all firesticks but tried a roku and now have a TCL roku tv. I like the roku interface better than the firestick/firetv/
Click to expand...

I'm still running second gen fire sticks but I need to switch my main TV before football season over to something faster. I have good stable internet and I get some shadowing and things can be a little jumpy.
 
BillBrasky4Cy said:
I'm still running second gen fire sticks but I need to switch my main TV before football season over to something faster. I have good stable internet and I get some shadowing and things can be a little jumpy.
Click to expand...

I had a gen 1 stick, that was bad. I still have a gen2 box, that is still one of the most powerful streaming devices put out, only downfall is it is aging and support is declining.

The 4K fire stick is a great device, Its more powerful than my roku 4K stick but can't really tell too much a difference in real usage. If I had a reason and wanted to spend the money, I'd upgrade my roku stick to a roku ultra.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GT25Ump
jdcyclone19 said:
I had a gen 1 stick, that was bad. I still have a gen2 box, that is still one of the most powerful streaming devices put out, only downfall is it is aging and support is declining.

The 4K fire stick is a great device, Its more powerful than my roku 4K stick but can't really tell too much a difference in real usage. If I had a reason and wanted to spend the money, I'd upgrade my roku stick to a roku ultra.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the 4K firesticks. I assume these will be a prime day deal... I assume the quality is much smoother than the gen 2 sticks.
 
The streaming services will eventually be forced to carry the junk channels in order to get the channels people actually want to watch just like cable.
Look at a channel like DEST, How many freaking reruns of BBQ Pitmasters can you watch? Yet it will be included in a package deal with a channel or two that people actually want to watch.
 
Cyclones_R_GR8 said:
The streaming services will eventually be forced to carry the junk channels in order to get the channels people actually want to watch just like cable.
Look at a channel like DEST, How many freaking reruns of BBQ Pitmasters can you watch? Yet it will be included in a package deal with a channel or two that people actually want to watch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I do wonder how long this game is going to last. What incentive do these channel owners have to play nice with the streaming services? Is there a reason why Disney would want to charge Youtube less to carry ESPN than Comcast or DirecTV? And is there a reason why they can leverage carrying less popular channels in order to carry the big ones?

When this first started a lot of these services were more streamlined. You went and got Sling with maybe 20 popular channels and you were good to go. And that slimmed down offering could come at a cheap price. Now that these services are growing to 50, 60, 70+ channels with on demand and dvr, they are essentially becoming a like for like replacement to cable, with all of the underlying costs that go with it. It seems like the difference in cost to the consumer will have to shift here.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rods79
aeroclone said:
Yeah, I do wonder how long this game is going to last. What incentive do these channel owners have to play nice with the streaming services? Is there a reason why Disney would want to charge Youtube less to carry ESPN than Comcast or DirecTV? And is there a reason why they can leverage carrying less popular channels in order to carry the big ones?

When this first started a lot of these services were more streamlined. You went and got Sling with maybe 20 popular channels and you were good to go. And that slimmed down offering could come at a cheap price. Now that these services are growing to 50, 60, 70+ channels with on demand and dvr, they are essentially becoming a like for like replacement to cable, with all of the underlying costs that go with it. It seems like the difference in cost to the consumer will have to shift here.
Click to expand...

I’m wondering the same. Seems like there could be a tipping point though where the streaming services could start to use their leverage as cheap/streamlined to keep the junk off of their platform and only on cable. Their advantage is that cable has already made their bed with that model, but the streaming services don’t have to follow suit. And fully decentralized/individual channel streaming subs are coming up quick.

Personally $50-$60 a month is about the limit for me for a cable replacement in YTTV. They added a few junk channels with their last increase, so any more of that and I may be out and on to individual channel streaming as they come online. I’ll fill my tv void with something more productive.

Streaming still has the advantage of cutting out the rental equipment fees (with extra boxes for extra rooms), charging for HD, and the cancellation fees. YTTV even allows you to edit/hide channels on your guide...so Fox News is out of the options.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cyfanatic
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom