TV Settlement

Discussion about other teams, non-cubs players, baseball history, sabr vs scouting, etc.
User avatar
XZero77
Superstar
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:57 am
Location: The Wastes
x 106
x 327
Contact:

Re: TV Settlement

Postby XZero77 » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:19 am

Sammy's Boombox wrote:I know it's like double the cost, but I am a MLBEI guy all the way. If the Cubs (or Royals) aren't on I pretty much surf around other games trying to catch big moments and most of the stud's AB: Trout, Harper, Stanton, etc.

It's not easy to flip around on MLB.tv. And I would say streaming is about 95% reliable, but that 5% I don't have the patience for.

Also, MLBEI comes with MLB.tv now (including AtBat and all the audio).

But I watch a ridiculous amount of baseball even compared to most subscribers.

If it weren't for baseball I wouldn't have satellite.


I ditched MLB:EI for MLB.tv this past season. It's less stable, but it's far cheaper and I can watch it anywhere, which is huge. I also really like some of the features, like having "big play" moments bookmarked so I can skim through games more efficiently. This year, we're finally ditching DirecTV and cutting the cord altogether, and MLB.tv was the deciding factor in that. The only reason I held off was because of baseball.
0 x

User avatar
Andy
Hall of Fame
Posts: 31676
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:02 am
Location: West Michigan
x 556

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Andy » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:55 am

You millennials and your cord cutting.

(I'd do it too, but we live so far from the local OTA stations that we don't even get them, except for Fox.)
0 x
TBS Playoffs Insider wrote:ITS THE THUGGISH RUGGISH BONE FOR GODS SAKES

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 68120
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 1002
x 1936

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Derwood » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:12 am

I horsefeathering love cable. Give me all the channels
0 x

User avatar
XZero77
Superstar
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:57 am
Location: The Wastes
x 106
x 327
Contact:

Re: TV Settlement

Postby XZero77 » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:24 am

Derwood wrote:I [expletive] love cable. Give me all the channels


The problem is that there's like 10-12 favorite channels I really watch, but to get all of them in one package, I have to pay like $130 a month. It's just not worth it.

I think if cable/satellite is going to survive long term, they'll eventually need to go a la carte.
0 x

User avatar
Ding Dong Johnson
Crap Bag
Posts: 33914
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:42 am
Location: Durnsville
x 768
x 5381

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Ding Dong Johnson » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:34 am

I give directv about $185 a month, and it doesn't bother me at all.
1 x
Image

User avatar
Sammys Boombox
Formerly eb14play2
Posts: 6247
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO
x 1174
x 531

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Sammys Boombox » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:20 pm

Ding Dong Johnson wrote:I give directv about $185 a month, and it doesn't bother me at all.


You need to call and complain. I only paid $78 for Sunday Ticket this year. They'll negotiate your bill with you.
0 x
CUBS PACKERS MIZZOU

fivepercent
Role Player
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:22 pm
Location: Florida
x 1

Re: TV Settlement

Postby fivepercent » Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:22 am

XZero77 wrote:
Derwood wrote:I [expletive] love cable. Give me all the channels


The problem is that there's like 10-12 favorite channels I really watch, but to get all of them in one package, I have to pay like $130 a month. It's just not worth it.

I think if cable/satellite is going to survive long term, they'll eventually need to go a la carte.


I don't think a la carte is a good situation for sports fans. Sports channels are by far the most expensive channels for cable/sat companies. If it goes a la carte, the non sports watchers will have a heck of a deal but the espns, nfl networks, mlb networks and RSNs will be $15-$30 each.

I really don't understand everyone's desire to stream everything. I love streaming when I'm out of the house, but it's a far inferior product to cable in house IMO. The upgraded bandwidth it will take if the cord cutting continues will cost just as much as a bundled cable package. I understand the movement to curb cable prices, but I would be careful what you wish for.
0 x

User avatar
Banedon
Curse You!
Posts: 66328
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:36 pm
Location: Kidding Myself
x 5037
x 5020

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Banedon » Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:36 pm

fivepercent wrote:I really don't understand everyone's desire to stream everything. I love streaming when I'm out of the house, but it's a far inferior product to cable in house IMO. The upgraded bandwidth it will take if the cord cutting continues will cost just as much as a bundled cable package. I understand the movement to curb cable prices, but I would be careful what you wish for.


This isn't true. How much bandwidth do you think streaming tv requires?
0 x
Image

User avatar
XZero77
Superstar
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:57 am
Location: The Wastes
x 106
x 327
Contact:

Re: TV Settlement

Postby XZero77 » Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:45 pm

Banedon wrote:
fivepercent wrote:I really don't understand everyone's desire to stream everything. I love streaming when I'm out of the house, but it's a far inferior product to cable in house IMO. The upgraded bandwidth it will take if the cord cutting continues will cost just as much as a bundled cable package. I understand the movement to curb cable prices, but I would be careful what you wish for.


This isn't true. How much bandwidth do you think streaming tv requires?


It's not all the much, but it's not nothing, either. On a couple of occasions where the wife and I went on runs of binge watching, we got letters from our ISP telling is to stop using so much bandwidth or upgrade. Now, even with the upgraded internet our bill would have been well less than our DirecTV bill, but if you have a household (even a small one) of TV watchers all relying on streaming, it's going to add up.

But on the cable/satellite side, you don't have to go full a la carte, they could require a basic package (maybe about the size and price of Sling TV's basic lineup) that includes networks like ESPN, MLBN, NFL, etc., and allow adding additional channels a la carte.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 77436
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 9685
x 12834

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Sammy Sofa » Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:14 pm

Well, that's not a bandwidth issue so much as a horsefeathers ISP issue. Most of the time if they're capping or charging extra fees it's just because they think they can as opposed to actual limitations.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Banedon
Curse You!
Posts: 66328
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:36 pm
Location: Kidding Myself
x 5037
x 5020

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Banedon » Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:18 pm

XZero77 wrote:
Banedon wrote:
fivepercent wrote:I really don't understand everyone's desire to stream everything. I love streaming when I'm out of the house, but it's a far inferior product to cable in house IMO. The upgraded bandwidth it will take if the cord cutting continues will cost just as much as a bundled cable package. I understand the movement to curb cable prices, but I would be careful what you wish for.


This isn't true. How much bandwidth do you think streaming tv requires?


It's not all the much, but it's not nothing, either. On a couple of occasions where the wife and I went on runs of binge watching, we got letters from our ISP telling is to stop using so much bandwidth or upgrade. Now, even with the upgraded internet our bill would have been well less than our DirecTV bill, but if you have a household (even a small one) of TV watchers all relying on streaming, it's going to add up.

But on the cable/satellite side, you don't have to go full a la carte, they could require a basic package (maybe about the size and price of Sling TV's basic lineup) that includes networks like ESPN, MLBN, NFL, etc., and allow adding additional channels a la carte.


Bandwidth refers to the bit-rate of a connection. You're talking about data caps.
0 x
Image

CubinNY
Hall of Fame
Posts: 22346
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Pike Road, Al
x 202
x 477

Re: TV Settlement

Postby CubinNY » Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:42 pm

Here in the 3rd world country of Alabama we have terrible everything, but most of all terrible internet. I have the best bandwidth available from the cable company and on evenings and weekends we have to watch streaming video on 720p or less or we get freezes and stops. It is maddening, but that's what I get for living in a 3rd world place.
0 x

User avatar
XZero77
Superstar
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:57 am
Location: The Wastes
x 106
x 327
Contact:

Re: TV Settlement

Postby XZero77 » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:20 pm

Banedon wrote:
XZero77 wrote:
Banedon wrote:
This isn't true. How much bandwidth do you think streaming tv requires?


It's not all the much, but it's not nothing, either. On a couple of occasions where the wife and I went on runs of binge watching, we got letters from our ISP telling is to stop using so much bandwidth or upgrade. Now, even with the upgraded internet our bill would have been well less than our DirecTV bill, but if you have a household (even a small one) of TV watchers all relying on streaming, it's going to add up.

But on the cable/satellite side, you don't have to go full a la carte, they could require a basic package (maybe about the size and price of Sling TV's basic lineup) that includes networks like ESPN, MLBN, NFL, etc., and allow adding additional channels a la carte.


Bandwidth refers to the bit-rate of a connection. You're talking about data caps.


Duh, yeah. I was mixing up my trains of thought. But with up to 2-3 people using streaming services at a given time, it strains our bandwidth, too. For example, if I'm watching MLB.tv, the wife is watching Netflix and my daughter is streaming something, we run into issues. A lot of people don't have access to internet service that offers more than 10-20 mbps (tops), so as a comprehensive alternative to cable/satellite, streaming services are less than ideal.

And as fivepercent said, even though many streaming services are more feature rich, the quality and consistency of the feeds pale in comparison to cable and satellite.
0 x

fivepercent
Role Player
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:22 pm
Location: Florida
x 1

Re: TV Settlement

Postby fivepercent » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:07 am

XZero77 wrote:But on the cable/satellite side, you don't have to go full a la carte, they could require a basic package (maybe about the size and price of Sling TV's basic lineup) that includes networks like ESPN, MLBN, NFL, etc., and allow adding additional channels a la carte.


We'll see if anyone can make that work. Ultimately, it's probably going to come down to the sports leagues rights fees getting renegotiated to make anything like that work. I still believe the big losers in all of the cord cutting deal is going to be sports fans. If we want our content, we're gonna have to start paying more per channel for it. The people that don't watch sports are not going to be subsidizing it anymore.
0 x

fivepercent
Role Player
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:22 pm
Location: Florida
x 1

Re: TV Settlement

Postby fivepercent » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:18 am

XZero77 wrote:Duh, yeah. I was mixing up my trains of thought. But with up to 2-3 people using streaming services at a given time, it strains our bandwidth, too. For example, if I'm watching MLB.tv, the wife is watching Netflix and my daughter is streaming something, we run into issues. A lot of people don't have access to internet service that offers more than 10-20 mbps (tops), so as a comprehensive alternative to cable/satellite, streaming services are less than ideal.

And as fivepercent said, even though many streaming services are more feature rich, the quality and consistency of the feeds pale in comparison to cable and satellite.


Yep, multiple HD streams going at once in our house is an issue. Also, 4K and its successor are coming soon. Data caps are being implemented in a lot of areas. There's no free lunches in media consumption. Eventually, costs are going to rise a good bit on streaming if everyone transitions over to that.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 77436
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 9685
x 12834

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Sammy Sofa » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:20 am

Basically America's data infrastructure is about as impressive as its other national infrastructures.

BOOM, TOPICAL BURN.
1 x
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
scs_paradise
Starter
Posts: 804
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:57 pm
Location: Madison, WI
x 2

Re: TV Settlement

Postby scs_paradise » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:26 am

CP_414 wrote:I live a few miles south of Milwaukee. Due to MLB's absurd territories I'm blacked out of the Cubs via MLBTV. I can buy EI through my cable company and the Cubs are not blacked out on EI (unless playing the Brewers) because the cable is based out of Milwaukee which is not a Cubs blackout zone.

Does anyone know if any of these changes would help a situation like mine? I'd much prefer to save $100+ and get MLBTV instead of EI, but I don't think this helps me at all.



I've had this problem too but MLBtv is pretty good at fixing that for you if you call. In their terms they have a link to check your zip code and if that says you shouldn't be blacked out, just call them, they ask for your IP address and then 5 minutes later you are good to go. I've even called and lied telling them I'm traveling in Minnesota but pulling a Wisconsin IP address when the cubs play the brewers. In my experience, most of the guys I've talked to on the customer service line don't give a horsefeathers about opening up your IP and I've never been told no they won't do it.
0 x
Mediocrity to the mediocre is excellence.

User avatar
scs_paradise
Starter
Posts: 804
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:57 pm
Location: Madison, WI
x 2

Re: TV Settlement

Postby scs_paradise » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:43 pm

fivepercent wrote:
XZero77 wrote:Duh, yeah. I was mixing up my trains of thought. But with up to 2-3 people using streaming services at a given time, it strains our bandwidth, too. For example, if I'm watching MLB.tv, the wife is watching Netflix and my daughter is streaming something, we run into issues. A lot of people don't have access to internet service that offers more than 10-20 mbps (tops), so as a comprehensive alternative to cable/satellite, streaming services are less than ideal.

And as fivepercent said, even though many streaming services are more feature rich, the quality and consistency of the feeds pale in comparison to cable and satellite.


Yep, multiple HD streams going at once in our house is an issue. Also, 4K and its successor are coming soon. Data caps are being implemented in a lot of areas. There's no free lunches in media consumption. Eventually, costs are going to rise a good bit on streaming if everyone transitions over to that.


For most of my customers, that issue is related to the throughput limitations of the AP not the bandwidth of their ISP. Of course, I have zero knowledge of your set up, so I'll just say this as a general comment.

To fix that streaming issue of 2 to 3 people seeming to max out the ability to stream, I usually install a couple of access points to distribute the traffic over multiple devices. My AP of choice right now for consumers is Ubiquiti's Unifi APs. They run about $70/AP, you can set up the same SSID throughout the house on different APs and it will hand off from 1 AP to the next as you move through. By splitting up the traffic like this, it has fixed that issue for all but one of the people I work with and that guy had a router that was causing his issue.

Side note, if you go this route, creating multiple SSIDs (like enabling the guest network feature) forces the AP to split itself in to multiple virtual APs which reduces the throughput by about 65% for any one SSID network.
0 x
Mediocrity to the mediocre is excellence.

User avatar
Andy
Hall of Fame
Posts: 31676
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:02 am
Location: West Michigan
x 556

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Andy » Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:25 pm

fivepercent wrote:
XZero77 wrote:Duh, yeah. I was mixing up my trains of thought. But with up to 2-3 people using streaming services at a given time, it strains our bandwidth, too. For example, if I'm watching MLB.tv, the wife is watching Netflix and my daughter is streaming something, we run into issues. A lot of people don't have access to internet service that offers more than 10-20 mbps (tops), so as a comprehensive alternative to cable/satellite, streaming services are less than ideal.

And as fivepercent said, even though many streaming services are more feature rich, the quality and consistency of the feeds pale in comparison to cable and satellite.


Yep, multiple HD streams going at once in our house is an issue. Also, 4K and its successor are coming soon. Data caps are being implemented in a lot of areas. There's no free lunches in media consumption. Eventually, costs are going to rise a good bit on streaming if everyone transitions over to that.

Bingo. Once cord cutting becomes the majority, the companies in charge of it will inevitably be able to get away with charging close to as much as cable + Internet currently costs for most people even if the bandwidth doesn't actually cost that much.

(I admit I don't know all the particulars of the recent FCC net neutrality ruling, and if there's some provision in there that would prevent such a thing, feel free to call me an idiot.)
0 x
TBS Playoffs Insider wrote:ITS THE THUGGISH RUGGISH BONE FOR GODS SAKES

User avatar
The Logan
Superstar
Posts: 14955
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:03 am
Location: Lakeview
x 4696
x 1597

Re: TV Settlement

Postby The Logan » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:43 pm

Comcast has had a data cap on us for years, but they just recently offered an "unlimited data" option for an extra $30-$35 a month. It's tempting, but I also wonder how quickly they'll throttle our speeds if we start using it too much. I would not put it past them to do that in a heartbeat.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 77436
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 9685
x 12834

Re: TV Settlement

Postby Sammy Sofa » Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:07 pm

The Logan wrote:Comcast has had a data cap on us for years, but they just recently offered an "unlimited data" option for an extra $30-$35 a month. It's tempting, but I also wonder how quickly they'll throttle our speeds if we start using it too much. I would not put it past them to do that in a heartbeat.


Comcast (and other ISP's) are notorious for doing throttling they don't notify you of, regardless of what you're paying for. When I was in Chicago I had their increased "blast" data plan and figured out they were throttling us after using it for about 3 months. Called to complain and they gave me the blast option free for a year (it was only an extra $10 each month, so, meh), but they would still periodically throttle it if my roommate was doing a ton of gaming or if we were downloading too many, uh, "acquired" files via FTP transfers.
0 x
► Show Spoiler

CubinNY
Hall of Fame
Posts: 22346
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Pike Road, Al
x 202
x 477

Re: TV Settlement

Postby CubinNY » Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:09 pm

scs_paradise wrote:
fivepercent wrote:
XZero77 wrote:Duh, yeah. I was mixing up my trains of thought. But with up to 2-3 people using streaming services at a given time, it strains our bandwidth, too. For example, if I'm watching MLB.tv, the wife is watching Netflix and my daughter is streaming something, we run into issues. A lot of people don't have access to internet service that offers more than 10-20 mbps (tops), so as a comprehensive alternative to cable/satellite, streaming services are less than ideal.

And as fivepercent said, even though many streaming services are more feature rich, the quality and consistency of the feeds pale in comparison to cable and satellite.


Yep, multiple HD streams going at once in our house is an issue. Also, 4K and its successor are coming soon. Data caps are being implemented in a lot of areas. There's no free lunches in media consumption. Eventually, costs are going to rise a good bit on streaming if everyone transitions over to that.


For most of my customers, that issue is related to the throughput limitations of the AP not the bandwidth of their ISP. Of course, I have zero knowledge of your set up, so I'll just say this as a general comment.

To fix that streaming issue of 2 to 3 people seeming to max out the ability to stream, I usually install a couple of access points to distribute the traffic over multiple devices. My AP of choice right now for consumers is Ubiquiti's Unifi APs. They run about $70/AP, you can set up the same SSID throughout the house on different APs and it will hand off from 1 AP to the next as you move through. By splitting up the traffic like this, it has fixed that issue for all but one of the people I work with and that guy had a router that was causing his issue.

Side note, if you go this route, creating multiple SSIDs (like enabling the guest network feature) forces the AP to split itself in to multiple virtual APs which reduces the throughput by about 65% for any one SSID network.

So, are you saying I should get rid of extra Netgear log ins. For example of Netgear5G1, Netgear5G2, ext. If I got rid of those other ones would it stop all the freezes and whatnot?
0 x


Return to “General Baseball Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: OleMissCub, Rob and 1 guest