Nay, we are but men. Rock!

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?

There are countless hundreds of channels on TV.  People often talk about how there are so many channels and so little that is actually worth watching.

I wish the cable and satellite companies actually did the much talked about à la carte plans, because then I’d only be paying for the channels I watch.  It frustrates me that I’m paying for channels that I don’t care about.  If à la carte does eventually come to fruition, I know the two channels that I would trim it down to.

The first, and most stereotypical channel, is ESPN.  Does anything else really need to be said for it?  Sure, Fox Sports Net has some good stuff like regional sports (e.g. FSNW has every Mariners game), but it’s no ESPN.  There is something to be said about “having” to go to a sports bar to watch an event on ESPN, however, like I did last year for the College World Series.

The second, and probably just as stereotypically male, is Discovery.  I swear I watch just about every show they air.  And fortunately I don’t have to watch it during it’s first run, because they are sure to air it at some other point during the next week or two.  I just watched them making a Les Paul guitar, and now I’m watching them make eye glasses.  Before that, I watched the Mythbusters do what they do best, blow stuff up.  Even at 3 years old, my son Judah’s favorite show is Mythbusters.

What are your two?