Cord cutting still subpar

Who says you have to do without? We were in the same boat wanting Hallmark,but wanted to keep YTTV/wStarz and Philo.
Found out we could subscribe to the Hallmark Movies Now app for $5. a month when you subscribe to their annual rate.
Now we have access to all Hallmark's Series,Movies,Dramas,Mysteries,some may say $5. a month is too much and I just say there are no commercials at all on the Hallmark Movies Now app.
You are absolutely right on that. I actually tried the Hallmark apps for a bit, but the problem is that with all the channels that have something similar, watching TV could become a matter of moving from app-to-app, rather than clicking on a channel... time consuming and confusing for many. It just seems to take the enjoyment and relaxation out of watching TV. Still, I'm sure that for some this becomes a viable option.
 
You are absolutely right on that. I actually tried the Hallmark apps for a bit, but the problem is that with all the channels that have something similar, watching TV could become a matter of moving from app-to-app, rather than clicking on a channel... time consuming and confusing for many. It just seems to take the enjoyment and relaxation out of watching TV. Still, I'm sure that for some this becomes a viable option.

I agree. I mainly watch YouTube TV and Netflix, just like when I had cable--just two primary sources for all my content. I usually forget about Amazon Prime, unless there's a highly anticipated movie or TV show released, which I learn of in emails they send me. And for PBS, I practically have to write myself a note to remember to watch something on there. The only exception is when I do one or two months of HBO Now or Hulu. Knowing I have a short window to watch whatever I'm interested in, I do make a point of checking those apps first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xfoneguy
Woohoo! NBC recorded shows and recorded shows on NBC owned networks like Syfy and USA are no longer restricted to the VOD version. Only CBS and CW shows seem to still be locked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigerfan33
My better half and I just signed up with DirecTV Now, and I have all the same complaints as the OP.

The DirecTV Now app's interface is a joke. It's like someone described TV over the phone to someone who had never seen it before, and that person waited about 2 months before they tried to build the app based on their vague recollection of that phone call. They pushed it out the door as a Minimum Viable Product and now are waiting for people to complain so they can prioritize equally half-arsed patches, but there's no system for feedback, just a customer service hotline to India and the silent surveillance of all your viewing habits and whatever else the Roku knows about you.

In DTV Now you can look at the guide or you can watch TV, pick one. Going back to what you were watching after you go to the guide involves waiting a few seconds as it buffers. Sometimes it says your network is too slow, and you wait even longer, although I suspect it really is just doing crap in the background, trying to buffer something you already aborted or something it thinks you might want next. If you were watching something that was paused or not "live" then expect it to take even longer. Nothing is snappy.

It is also a mystery what will happen when you press a button; nothing is intuitive.

Miss something that was just said? Maybe you can go back, try it and see. Well wait for it to buffer... ah there it goes. Oh, it went too fast. Now you are back at the beginning.

Rewind and fast-forward are restricted, only working in certain situations, ensuring you watch lots of commercials, and mainly just moving a progress bar at the bottom of the screen so you have to guess where to stop. For the most part there is no skipping ahead, and definitely no slow-mo. Anything except pause means you gotta wait a second or three for buffering. Even just starting the app means waiting through a splash screen that implies (every time) a new version is installing to the Roku. First channel that comes up is always weather, not whatever you were on last.

Channels are only in alphabetical order, no numbers, and not grouped by type.

The guide doesn't just scroll, it animates the scrolling in a way that is really, really annoying. I won't bother describing it, just know that it's slightly better when you scrolling up than down.

Advanced options to customize your experience are nonexistent.

The Roku remote is a child's toy and feels like there is no way it can last. The Roku also is not very good with surround audio on some older TVs, so we have to keep it in stereo mode. Volume buttons on the side of the remote only control the TV, which is useless if your TV only sends digital audio at a fixed volume level to an AVR.

We also just canceled Dish after 8 years of slowly declining channel selection & quality, last year's UI update that completely hobbled the Hopper 1 and its remote, a WiFi adapter that suddenly decided to only work for less than a day at a time and only on 1 out of 5 reboots, picture freezing for 30-60 seconds at a time in clear weather ... possibly all things which could've been fixed by a Hopper 3 upgrade which we shouldn't have to beg for ... but when we called, we were not one of the lucky ones, or just not angry sounding enough, so they said we could not get an upgrade without paying more. Meanwhile we have been paying above average for our channel package for years, and they've dinged us with enough fees to pay for like 5 hardware upgrades over the years. So we're done. They are sending a box for the Hopper and a tech to pick it up but they'll leave the hardware on the roof in case we change our minds.

But anyway yeah, I miss some of the Dish UI features already, after seeing how bad DirecTV Now is. Unfortunately it's our only option. We want local channels, and OTA doesn't work here due to topography. One nice thing about DTV Now is we get TCM in the cheapo package. So it's a tradeoff, but overall a slight downgrade from cable/satellite. They could make it better if they put some effort into their app but I doubt they have any incentive to do that, just like Dish has no incentive to offer consistent customer service without people begging/screaming/writing to secret email addresses or just getting lucky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zookster
Unfortunately it's our only option. We want local channels, and OTA doesn't work here due to topography.

So PS Vue, YouTube TV, and Hulu Live TV don't carry your locals? I know they may lack other channels you want, but if locals are a priority, missing a few other channels may be worth a better user experience. I'm not saying those services are perfect (especially Hulu), but in my experience, much less frustrating than it sounds like DTV Now is. BTW, none of these online live TV services will let you punch in channels directly by number, or flip channels up and down. And of course the limitations of using a Roku to watch TV will be common across all the services. But YTTV has a customizable guide, and PS Vue lets you create a favorite channels list that appears at the top of the guide. Depending on your Roku model and internet, the loading times when switching channels or pausing or fast-forwarding are reasonable (not instant like it can be with a cable/sat DVR receiver, but not OMG! WTF? bad), and YTTV almost never buffers in mid show for me.
 
So PS Vue, YouTube TV, and Hulu Live TV don't carry your locals?
Yes, but we need certain premium channels to make it feel like we are not just paying for local channels which should be free, so we have to get the higher-priced tiers and then seems like not such a good deal anymore. DirecTV Now seemed like the best one to start with, price & selection-wise. Will try others as inevitable disappointment sets in... but in keeping with the theme of this thread, cord cutting is just not quite "there" yet. It's an option, but it's got a lot of tradeoffs, even if you're not on a tight budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gms49ers
Yes, but we need certain premium channels to make it feel like we are not just paying for local channels which should be free, so we have to get the higher-priced tiers and then seems like not such a good deal anymore. DirecTV Now seemed like the best one to start with, price & selection-wise. Will try others as inevitable disappointment sets in... but in keeping with the theme of this thread, cord cutting is just not quite "there" yet. It's an option, but it's got a lot of tradeoffs, even if you're not on a tight budget.

So you believe your local channels should be free?,let's compare, if you were able to use an over the air antenna your main local channels would be broadcasting in 720p or 1080i,the subchannels 480i.
Using my locals as a reference with YTTV,all my locals stream in 1080p,except ABC which is 720p,then my resolutions are upscaled to 2160p through my Roku Stick+.For my money I would choose the streaming resolutions.
 
So you believe your local channels should be free?

Personally, I don't think they should be free. That said, retransmission rates should be based on what it actually costs to deliver the service, with a little wiggle room as subscriber numbers fluctuate. It should not be their primary source of revenue.
 
It's an option, but it's got a lot of tradeoffs, even if you're not on a tight budget.
The other part that many of the fanboys seem happy to ignore is that the prices will go up precipitously. There is going to be considerable pressure at some point to make the services profitable. Sony has publicly conceded this already and other services have been resistant to straight answers to the question of "is the business model sustainable".

Once the prices go up, the cost will go up as customers expect a user experience commensurate with the price. DIRECTV Now in particular has a long way to go in terms of its UI and fleshing out of its feature set.
 
Personally, I don't think they should be free. That said, retransmission rates should be based on what it actually costs to deliver the service, with a little wiggle room as subscriber numbers fluctuate. It should not be their primary source of revenue.
The failing in your argument is that it appears to assume that it costs the station money to deliver the service via third parties and I'm betting that isn't typically the case. The stations are the parties that are exacting the fees but it is the carriers that have to make the effort. Such is not to say that the carriers might not be "marking up" the retrans fees a bit.

If the stations can't make the advertising model work, that's not the carrier's problem. If the networks aren't providing the basis on which to make money or the stations are spending more money than they bring in, that's not the carrier's fault. The carriers simply bring more eyeballs to the party (if the party is worth attending) giving the stations a better shot at more revenue than they would have had without them.
 
So you believe your local channels should be free?,let's compare, if you were able to use an over the air antenna your main local channels would be broadcasting in 720p or 1080i,the subchannels 480i.
Using my locals as a reference with YTTV,all my locals stream in 1080p,except ABC which is 720p,then my resolutions are upscaled to 2160p through my Roku Stick+.For my money I would choose the streaming resolutions.
So if the source broadcast is 720p or 1080i or 480i,
And your streaming feed of choice is upscaling that signal before streaming to you,
that is better than your ota equipment upscaling the same original signal locally?

And yes,
Local OTA broadcasters are paid by 'eyes on ads'
anything that increases 'eyes on ads' already brings more money to OTA.
Therefore, should not be charged to end viewer.
Also, retransmitter must absorb cost of equip/retransmittion,
Which 'eyes on ads' increases income to original OTA,
If anything,
The OTA should share the ad income increase from additional 'eyes on ads' with retransmitter.

The revenue system as it is right now is backward.

Sent from my SM-G930P using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991
The failing in your argument is that it appears to assume that it costs the station money to deliver the service via third parties and I'm betting that isn't typically the case. The stations are the parties that are exacting the fees but it is the carriers that have to make the effort. Such is not to say that the carriers might not be "marking up" the retrans fees a bit.

If the stations can't make the advertising model work, that's not the carrier's problem. If the networks aren't providing the basis on which to make money or the stations are spending more money than they bring in, that's not the carrier's fault. The carriers simply bring more eyeballs to the party (if the party is worth attending) giving the stations a better shot at more revenue than they would have had without them.

Why wouldn't it cost the stations money to delivery the service? Does the signal magically get from the source to the destination? My understanding is, in most cases, the MVPDs do not simply stick up an antenna to get the content. Even when they do that, there is still a cost involved on the MVPD's side of things to take that signal and do something with it.
 
Why wouldn't it cost the stations money to delivery the service? Does the signal magically get from the source to the destination? My understanding is, in most cases, the MVPDs do not simply stick up an antenna to get the content. Even when they do that, there is still a cost involved on the MVPD's side of things to take that signal and do something with it.
Perhaps you missed this part,

"Also, retransmitter must absorb cost of equip/retransmittion,
Which 'eyes on ads' increases income to original OTA,
If anything,
The OTA should share the ad income increase from additional 'eyes on ads' with retransmitter."

Sent from my SM-G930P using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
Why wouldn't it cost the stations money to delivery the service? Does the signal magically get from the source to the destination? My understanding is, in most cases, the MVPDs do not simply stick up an antenna to get the content. Even when they do that, there is still a cost involved on the MVPD's side of things to take that signal and do something with it.
Just as an example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, Dish gets its signal OTA, the same way I get it from my antenna. It cost the stations absolutely zero for Dish to grab that signal and pass it along to their customers. It does cost Dish some money to pass that signal however. Dish has to maintain that pipe from its receiving antenna all the way to the uplink so I have no problem with Dish charging me a small amount to provide me with their local service. What the stations are doing is tantamount to extortion allowed by public law....
 
Perhaps you missed this part,

"Also, retransmitter must absorb cost of equip/retransmittion,
Which 'eyes on ads' increases income to original OTA,
If anything,
The OTA should share the ad income increase from additional 'eyes on ads' with retransmitter."

Sent from my SM-G930P using the SatelliteGuys app!

I never suggested any monies collected to cover the cost of retransmission should necessarily go to the station owner, only that I expected it wouldn't cost nothing. If it cost the station nothing, I would expect it to cost less than a direct connection to the MVPD uplink would.

As for ad revenue shares, don't the MVPD's get to insert ads and make money that way, and doesn't that accomplish the same kind of thing at the end of the day?
 
Just playing devil's advocate, but keep in mind the local stations taut the value of the additional subscribers that their programming brings to the satellite/cable services when negotiating retrans fees.
 
Yes, the cablecos and satcos “derive a benefit” from retransmission. But I think it’s gone way too far.

Maybe with ATSC 3 we will have a Hopper 5 that will handle the OTA or revert to getting he signal over the Internet.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
 
The other part that many of the fanboys seem happy to ignore is that the prices will go up precipitously.

So I guess we should all give up now and go back to paying up to five times as much as for cable/sat service because those prices will never go up. :rolleyes:

What OTT live TV haters seem to ignore is that we can go back to cable/sat services any time if the value we get from OTT live TV services no longer pencils out for us. No one has signed a lifetime contract, spent thousands of dollars on new gear, and is staking their life, honor, and first born on these OTT live TV services. If YouTube TV spontaneously triples my price overnight, I'll be grateful for the $2,000 I've saved over the past two-plus years on OTT live TV services.
 
My understanding is, in most cases, the MVPDs do not simply stick up an antenna to get the content.
By and large, your understanding is incorrect. Some stations co-op with MVPDs and provide them Internet-based feeds but most still use the old OTA reception model or are using Internet-based feeds that aren't that expensive to deliver. Providing a feed isn't a huge additional expense as they simply break out the channels before they are sent to the multiplexer and send them out on broadband or fiber (often provided by an MVPD).
Even when they do that, there is still a cost involved on the MVPD's side of things to take that signal and do something with it.
This does not support your assertion that the station is spending money on delivering the goods to MVPD subscribers unless you can show that the station is paying the MVPD for carriage and I think we all know that's the reverse of what's happening.
 
So I guess we should all give up now and go back to paying up to five times as much as for cable/sat service because those prices will never go up. :rolleyes:
You should make hay while the sun shines, but don't get too used to it.
What OTT live TV haters seem to ignore is that we can go back to cable/sat services any time if the value we get from OTT live TV services no longer pencils out for us
The flaw is in assuming that the honeymoon will last forever with the OTT providers and that the broadband providers won't capitalize on the overturn of 'net neutrality legislation.

Your broadband bill is forever (and there's typically nobody regulating the prices) but a DBS equipment purchase is more or less a one time expenditure. Cable equipment is becoming less and less portable until the point where cable TV service itself becomes OTT and you'll have to use streaming equipment that handles their authentication model.
 
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)