Over-the-air v. Cable v. No TV
This has been a discussion going on in our house recently. Do we continue with our current cable plan, jump up to the next level for some channels we would definitely watch, ditch cable and hope we can get the free, over-the-air signal (we live in an area with lots of hills), or just not “do” TV. Could we cut the cable, and save ourselves a little scratch? The arguments are as follows:
For the more channels, as I said, we’d watch the additional channels we’d be paying for. On the flip side, do we really want to spend more time in front of the TV? Are we going to watch it enough to justify the additional expense? I dunno.
For the over-the-air broadcast, it’s free save for the equipment. I’d probably need to get an external antenna for the house, since the rabbit-ears don’t seem to want to work. But since I don’t know for certain that the antenna would work I hesitate to shell out for one.
For the no TV option, most shows of interest are available through the various network websites for online streaming. I had a coworker say last week that they watch CSI on TV, because it’s better to watch The Office online than CSI. That’s totally a growing trend. DVRs are great, but with the online streaming you don’t have to do anything but push play. The major blow for this option is the lack of ability to watch sports. My friends would probably get tired of having me over every Saturday and Sunday in the fall.
If I can get OTA to work that’ll probably be the direction I lean. With gas prices on the rise, and in tow food prices, cost of living, etc. the savings from cable could be a nice little offset to the rising cost of pretty much everything. I would miss me some Discovery Channel, but that’s a sacrifice I think I’m willing to make.
Do you think you could drop cable? Could you go TV-less?
aaron said,
Wrote on May 5, 2008 @ 9:51 am
TV-less is easy. I could drop cable faster than fellow Nerbergians drop non-Organic, shade grown, fairly-traded coffee.
Every show we are interested in is either streamed or available direct from corporate websites (15-20 sec ads really are not that big of a deal, vs the $50+ cable pkg)
…The day sports are freely available online will be like the start of never-ending Christmas!
luke said,
Wrote on May 5, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Rarely do I sit through a full sports game anymore. Espn.com gives me all the sports I need. Network TV provides me with enough of the sports I enjoy watching to keep me satisfied … college football and basketball, NASCAR, horse racing, and the occasional baseball to put me to sleep. We have always had rabbit ears, except for the one time we had free cable at the church house in Vancouver. I just got our digital converter box with the $40 coupon from the government. Personally, I can’t justify the extra expense of cable, because in order to justify the expense I would have to watch more TV, which I wouldn’t be able to justify from a time or health perspective. Although I am pretty close to throwing out the TV altogether, which I may have to do anyway when we move to North Central Washington.
ben said,
Wrote on May 5, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
We have gone OTA since we moved to Oregon, ie since we have started having to pay for cable. We have done the Blockbuster online thing and we watch a decent amount of movies. As for my friends getting tired of me every weekend during football season I feel that the animosity goes a way with a six pack or so of a nice IPA. Besides, if you crash say four different friends houses they only have to feed you once a month.