I've wanted to, but when we tried a free trial of YouTube TV, my wife didn't like the way the remote worked. I've experienced the same bill increase problem with my cable provider. I've been a loyal customer of that company since about 1970; they were originally the Bell system affiliate in my area. Their new customers get very attractive plans, and older, loyal customers get screwed. It appears to be the same business model used by heroin dealers.

I would suggest that you try YouTube TV.

I still have Dish, but also do some streaming. I downloaded Roku and from that app, I also downloaded dozens of different channels that had programs that I watch. I kept Dish because many of the channels that I downloaded require you to have some sort of satellite or cable source in order to unlock and watch many of its programs.

My daughter does streaming entirely, no satellite or cable. She has a few sites she pays for: Disney, Paramount Plus, Utube, and one other that I can't think of. She says she gets just about everything she needs from those few streaming services. She does not get local TV, but can get them as an app on her TV and her cell phone.

Oh, and it costs her less to pay for those streaming services than it did to pay for a satellite or cable connection.

Streaming is fine if you want to watch specific discrete shows. It's not for "channel surfing" where you scan what's on and might just tune in in the middle of something interesting. So it depends upon how you watch TV.

Seriously thinking about it. Just about nothing I'd want to watch is not available via WiFi . My new cable box needs a WIFi connection so it's not even an alternative source of entertainment if WiFi goes down. The only advantage is the ability to record on the cable box, which I rarely do nowadays as everything can be streamed on demand. But I get WifI, cable, cellphone and landline from the same supplier. Removing cable ( and landline - which is also now WIfi dependant - so no longer useful as a backup) from the package wouldn't make much difference to cost.
As I type this I've just been watching Mexico v. South Africa on my laptop while simultaneously watching something on Netflix on the big TV connected to my laptop.

Here is my take:

When streaming first started hitting its stride it was far superior to cable in just about every way. It was cheaper than most fancy cable plans. You could watch, rewatch, download, pause and play at your leisure. This was hugely different than cable's "scheduled programming." AND there used to be no ads. This for many people was the biggest selling point. The only downside in my eyes was that there were fewer TV shows and movies available compared to cable.

Nowadays you can watch just about anything you want via streaming, but unfortunately that's where the improvements have stopped. All the major streaming services are subscription based. So in order to watch what you want, you often have to subscribe to multiple streaming services. This really adds up as each has a monthly subscription fee. The worst part is that they all have ads now. You have to pay extra to have a "premium subscription" that has fewer or no ads.

Basically streaming is slowly becoming exactly what people were trying to move away from when they switched from cable.

All that being said: if you are going to spend money on watching TV and movies, streaming is still more convenient than cable. You can watch what you want, when you want. Additionally, you can still get pretty good deals if you bundle subscription services with other electronic services like your wifi, phone service, etc. So if you take advantage of those types of promotions you can keep the costs down.

Streaming is like a tapas bar. Wide selection, but you pay for each one, and they all have different levels of content and ads, with associated fees,.which can quickly add up.

I stream via wifi to a Roku device (a one time expense) that's connected to my TV and pick services and plans from there. Hopefully your TV has at least one open HDMI port.

Bottom line - streaming is the 21st century way they get your money, and they're not shy about it.

We had DirecTV for almost 20 years. The last price hike got us to switch to Dish. But Dish pulled the same crap so we switched to Hulu (we already had Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Paramount +.

Spectrum was our internet provider and not only did they hike up our rate but we were having non stop outages for two months. I switched that to Starlink, saved money and no more outages.

Biggest disadvantage is the learning curve and the streaming services to updates and have glitches so gone are the days of simply turning on the TV and watching it. I know some people who want to switch but have to wait for their live in parents or in laws to pass away first.

If you're willing to fiddle with subscriptions, one benefit of streaming is you can sign up to a provider for a few months, watch what is interesting, then cancel and sign up to someone else.

Though I can't comment on switching, as I've never had a cable/satellite subscription.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Streaming is fine if you want to watch specific discrete shows. It's not for "channel surfing" where you scan what's on and might just tune in in the middle of something interesting. So it depends upon how you watch TV.

---

Exactly. That's why I haven't considered streaming for a minute. I also can record four shows at once when they're scheduled at the same time. Cost is not my issue; convenience and rcordability are. So Cable it is for me.    [I can and do access Amazon because I get it with my Prime subscription. I think I also get Peacock, but have never set it up.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TScottHilton

Here is my take:

When streaming first started hitting its stride it was far superior to cable in just about every way. It was cheaper than most fancy cable plans. You could watch, rewatch, download, pause and play at your leisure. This was hugely different than cable's "scheduled programming." AND there used to be no ads. This for many people was the biggest selling point. The only downside in my eyes was that there were fewer TV shows and movies available compared to cable.

---

Your apparent cable experience is the opposite of mine. I can record, watch, etc. easily, and do all the time. I have cable, not satellite. I also have one subscription to one service. Costly, but I'd likely have to get at least 3 different streaming services to have the coverage I do. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

Streaming is fine if you want to watch specific discrete shows. It's not for "channel surfing" where you scan what's on and might just tune in in the middle of something interesting. So it depends upon how you watch TV.

---

I dropped cable in the 1980s.  Went with over the air for years, them became a very early streamer when that technology became available.  First with a Roku setup, adding other stuff as it arrived.  However, when folks with cable ask me, I also tell them if the are rabid surfers, it would be a tough and frustrating change.  Brad

Roku has a "Live TV" section that is very similar to having cable TV, and its free. Tons of channels to surf and its laid out to look and feel like the cable tv guide channel.

We bought a $40 antenna from Best Buy, and were SHOCKED at how many channels (over 60) there are over the air, including all the local networks and three PBS stations. We’ve since cancelled all our streaming services, except what ever we get with Amazon Prime, which we barely ever watch anyways.

A good OTA can be a godsend if broadcasts are in range and sight lines are relatively clear (hills, trees, buildings). I think that ATSC 3.0 is the latest, but I'm not sure. As always, your TV will need to have a port to accept it and be compatible with the signal - not all TVs are compatible with ATSC. I think that the physical port is usually coax. A patch antenna will usually work better than a loop antenna. Mohu is a good brand to try. There are sites that will tell you where the local broadcast towers are, and estimate whether or not it will work for you.

Local broadcasters are required to send OTA signals, at least for the foreseeable future.

we have talked about it because of the fast climbing rates of rectum.......i mean spectrum. but we have to upgrade our tv first and i don't understand all about setting it up and adding this channel or that channel ...... i am too backwards i guess .

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1935tb-11

we have talked about it because of the fast climbing rates of rectum.......i mean spectrum. but we have to upgrade our tv first and i don't understand all about setting it up and adding this channel or that channel ...... i am too backwards i guess .

---

We are not very techy either. Our TV is one of the cheapest brands (insignia) Best Buy sells, and it was less than $200 a few years ago. The antenna is a rectangle plastic thing that hangs on the wall behind the TV, and the chord plugs into where a cable would. The remote has a button with a little picture of a TV with rabbit ears. When we first clicked on it, it asked if we wanted to scan for channels. Which we did. It automaticlly found all the available channels. Now when we turn the TV on, we just click on the antenna button, and a TV guide comes up, and we have tons of channels, costing nothing. Keep in mind, we live in the city. I have no idea what kind of channels or reception folks might have, who live out in the country. I'm watching the noon local news right now.

I’m a channel surfer and streaming doesn’t work for me , plus I want my local news at the regular times and a few local channels to watch a few of our favorite shows. Cable prices are a joke, but add up all the streaming BS and there ya go………right back up there. It’s all a joke!!!
Slammer!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dean T

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1935tb-11

we have talked about it because of the fast climbing rates of rectum.......i mean spectrum. but we have to upgrade our tv first and i don't understand all about setting it up and adding this channel or that channel ...... i am too backwards i guess .

---

We are not very techy either. Our TV is one of the cheapest brands (insignia) Best Buy sells, and it was less than $200 a few years ago. The antenna is a rectangle plastic thing that hangs on the wall behind the TV, and the chord plugs into where a cable would. The remote has a button with a little picture of a TV with rabbit ears. When we first clicked on it, it asked if we wanted to scan for channels. Which we did. It automaticlly found all the available channels. Now when we turn the TV on, we just click on the antenna button, and a TV guide comes up, and we have tons of channels, costing nothing. Keep in mind, we live in the city. I have no idea what kind of channels or reception folks might have, who live out in the country. I'm watching the noon local news right now.

---

yeah we are out in the country but get 30 channels of thehouse antenna... i got the square plastic model on a couple of other TVs in the house and we fine with it... our cable with internet / wifi (just one reciever) is 268.00 per month... so there it is.

Cut the cable about five years ago and went to Youtube TV. Started immediately saving about $100 per month. Since I already had Amazon Prime, here was no additional charge for that, so the one or two additional services we bought were still much cheaper. In some cases we just wait for a sale or get another service for a month and watch what we want and let the service lapse .. We have done that with Britbox for a couple of months and have now seen about all we wanted to see on that service.

Best thing we ever did.

I use a Direct TV streaming package, I've got the original Prime sub, and other subs, and all of them on our Roku, we have many Roku's with the same accounts provisioned on all of them. At one house we have fiber, and at the remote home we have Starlink. I'm thinking about switching to Starlink at the one house. It's cheaper and frankly it's as fast as our fiber, and so far is more reliable. You do what fits you, YMMV. Starlink was $80/month for the first 6 months, then went to $120 after that. Think it's increasing to $130 now. (Residential Max).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dean T

We bought a $40 antenna from Best Buy, and were SHOCKED at how many channels (over 60) there are over the air, including all the local networks and three PBS stations. We’ve since cancelled all our streaming services, except what ever we get with Amazon Prime, which we barely ever watch anyways.

---

This is the surprise of the day. You must be in the center of the Great Plains to get 60 channels over the air.. On a table top antenna we would get about 8 channels max. In the days of rabbit ears we got 2. Before 1959 we got 1. We are partitioned by a few mountains and the Pacific ocean. ..donc

Thanks for the sage advice everyone. I would now fall into the category of channel surfer which will now help guide my next course of action. That would be to go over the long list of channels we now receive and see what can be pruned without disrupting the household politics.