Cutting Cable the poll (raise, best, place, lifestyle)

[camaro69]

Originally Posted by jim9251

I fired Directv a year ago, have YouTube TV steaming and very happy, saving $100 a month. Saw a report that 4 million subs have left Directv this past year.

Don't watch that much tv.

Did the same with Directv 2.5 years go after being a loyal customer of 21 years.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by ddm2k

You can get more accurate details directly from the streaming service you intend on using to watch 4K programming.

I looked up two for you, just to show what the difference could be: YouTube cites a minimum of 15 Mbps to play smoothly, while Netflix mentions 25 Mbps. 4K is only the resolution, but these services may transcode the videos with different compression, which can result in wildly varying sizes for a given video length, even at the same 4K / 2160p resolution.

I recently signed up for Spectrum's Internet Assist (30 Mbps down / 4 Mbps up) and I will test it out this week and get back to you.

Thanks for your reply. It is the streaming service that recommends the 25Mbps. I'm interested because it provides 2000 channels (which are all listed on their website) including things like NFL network and movies for $30 per month. Neither YouTube nor Netflix supplies that amount of content, charge more and don't appear to have complete listings of their content available. I would not qualify for Spectrum Internet Assist and am not in a Spectrum service area.

[ddm2k]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

Thanks for your reply. It is the streaming service that recommends the 25Mbps. I'm interested because it provides 2000 channels (which are all listed on their website) including things like NFL network and movies for $30 per month. Neither YouTube nor Netflix supplies that amount of content, charge more and don't appear to have complete listings of their content available. I would not qualify for Spectrum Internet Assist and am not in a Spectrum service area.

Returning to this. I attempted to run a speed test, with and without Netflix running. On the new service, which is advertised as 30 down / 4 up, it tested between 30-31 down / 4-5 up.

Running Netflix and restarting the test, the speed dropped to 24 Mbps but did not interrupt the video stream.

Whether this was preserved due to buffers or traffic prioritization, I do not know how much each was responsible for, but "everything works" flawlessly, even under load. It was a bit surprising to see the stream of Gilmore Girls appear to only use 6 Mbps.

[BBCjunkie]

That's interesting. I'm going to try that myself.

[HJ99]

hmm, where I am moving, not sure what OTA stations, if any, I can get. Not paying for tv. And limited phone data plan my only internet. I can get DSL where I am moving (cant here), but its a monopoly situation and I am not paying that much. Continue with cell as my only internet.


Can still rent Netflix dvds by mail. And can get local weather forecast online. Assume some radio station has occasional ball game. Good enough.

[TMSRetired]

Originally Posted by ddm2k

Returning to this. I attempted to run a speed test, with and without Netflix running. On the new service, which is advertised as 30 down / 4 up, it tested between 30-31 down / 4-5 up.

Running Netflix and restarting the test, the speed dropped to 24 Mbps but did not interrupt the video stream.

Whether this was preserved due to buffers or traffic prioritization, I do not know how much each was responsible for, but "everything works" flawlessly, even under load. It was a bit surprising to see the stream of Gilmore Girls appear to only use 6 Mbps.

HD/4K requires more mbps. Minimum needed for regular viewing is 3mbps.

[BBCjunkie]

Originally Posted by ddm2k

Returning to this. I attempted to run a speed test, with and without Netflix running. On the new service, which is advertised as 30 down / 4 up, it tested between 30-31 down / 4-5 up.

Running Netflix and restarting the test, the speed dropped to 24 Mbps but did not interrupt the video stream.

Whether this was preserved due to buffers or traffic prioritization, I do not know how much each was responsible for, but "everything works" flawlessly, even under load. It was a bit surprising to see the stream of Gilmore Girls appear to only use 6 Mbps.

My current service is advertised at 20/5 but Altice overprovisions and so in reality it's typically a few Mbps more than that.

I got 26.87 Mbps before testing with Netflix, then 25.95 while running it. Upload speed less than 1 Mbps difference between the two.

This is on a hardwired ethernet connection, no wifi, and normal HD content (no 4K.)

[ddm2k]

Originally Posted by BBCjunkie

My current service is advertised at 20/5 but Altice overprovisions and so in reality it's typically a few Mbps more than that.

I got 26.87 Mbps before testing with Netflix, then 25.95 while running it. Upload speed less than 1 Mbps difference between the two.

This is on a hardwired ethernet connection, no wifi, and normal HD content (no 4K.)

So you experienced less than a 1 Mbps difference testing with 1080p, it makes sense I saw about 4 Mbps testing with 4K.

Though these drops in speed are much lower than the stated requirements for such video streams, we do not know if the "minimum requirements" take into account reserving other usable bandwidth for browsing, etc.

We also do not know, from these measurements, if the download stream slows down and begins eating up the buffer during this brief but demanding speed test. Mine lasted less than 1 minute.

I think this is a plausible explanation for why the numbers don't seem to add up.

[In2itive_1]

Originally Posted by ansible90

I like my cable. I like that I can press Guide on the remote and instantly see what is on. I like the OnDemand service so I can watch a show I missed or a movie. I have absolutely no patience for trying to find shows on 6 different streaming services. And I also like the live cable news, which you miss on streaming services.

I have Comcast with TV ( mid level package), internet ( not the fastest speed) and a Vonage phone.

That and other aspects of the change are what is concerning me. I have been preparing for dumping cable and getting a "Live TV streaming" option, which is higher-priced than plain streaming. Trying to decide which to go with. It bothers me that one service will carry some channels I want and others I don't, while another service offers ones missing from the other - so then I'll need a couple of services and feel it won't save much.

So, I do have an indoor antenna hooked up, but in this area it does not pick up a main network and a few local Channels. THEN, not all streaming services carry ABC either, which is not needed steadily, but want access to. Hey, if I could just let go of more, I would not need to bother.

The company I have had cable with has a less-expensive option, allowing to select TEN cable channels besides providing regular networks. Sounded good, BUT they tell me I would need to return sometime later after the disconnect for the lesser discounted rate. Then I see that I would need to switch to having Internet with them also to have that, which I don't want to bother with at the moment.

I just want to watch TV...

[In2itive_1]

Originally Posted by matisse12

I think people keep quiet about their disappointment in what happens after they drop Cable TV subscription - and they keep quiet about the inconvenience, lack of good access, technological problems, loss of ease of access, and loss of a way of viewing after dropping Cable TV.

As an aside, one poster above dropped cable tv and is now planning to resign up.

This is what I was wondering, having been in the habit of the ease of scrolling for what I want, I don't want it to become "a struggle". I think that it needs to be a whole mindset and having to adapt, as if there hasn't been enough to adapt to already.....