From: no_offline_contact@example.com   
      
   On 2026-01-06 1:06 p.m., super70s wrote:   
   > Looking over my TV/internet/phone bill, I saw I was paying $145/mo. for   
   > the video package alone. Beginning Jan. 1 I downgraded to basic cable   
   > which brings it down to $67/mo.   
   >   
   > As far as the expanded channels go, I found I was spending most of the   
   > time watching CNN, MS NOW, TV Land, Sci-Fi, TCM and ESPN from their 100+   
   > channel package.   
   >   
   > CNN - I have subscribed to the Roku CNN app for $45/yr. ($69/yr. after   
   > the first year) to stream this channel live. One benefit is I no longer   
   > have to endure the hokey local commercials that my provider would show   
   > on the Expanded package (just a message that says "CNN will resume   
   > shortly"). CNN does show their own commercials but it's just for their   
   > other programming.   
   >   
   > MS NOW - This channel doesn't offer an app to stream the channel live   
   > (yet), you have to connect it to their expanded package channel. But you   
   > can stream the "highlights" of all their shows with a delay of a few   
   > hours. This is just about as good as getting the channel live, and you   
   > don't have to endure any commercials between the segments.   
   >   
   > TV Land - I would watch some of my favorite sitcoms on TV Land, but all   
   > those shows are also offered by MeTV which is included in my basic   
   > package.   
   >   
   > Sci-Fi - I only watched this for Twilight Zone reruns, which MeTV also   
   > shows every evening.   
   >   
   > TCM - I have found a good substitute for this is the "Cinevault   
   > Classics" channel on the Roku Live app. Of course you have to endure   
   > commercials unlike TCM. I'm not that crazy about movies from the '30s   
   > and '40s anyway which is what TCM devotes a whole lot of their   
   > programming to.   
   >   
   > ESPN - I would watch this (and their sister sports channels) often   
   > during college football season, but most of the "must see" major sports   
   > events are on the major networks which I get in the basic package.   
   >   
   > To sum up, I think it's going to work out and save me a lot of money. At   
   > some point in the not too distant future I think all of these channels   
   > will be forced to let people subscribe them individually -- people are   
   > sick and tired of paying for a lot of filler channels they never watch.   
      
   Agreed! We had a LOT of that nonsense here with respect to cable   
   bundles. The cable company once announced a new bundle of new channels -   
   probably 30-odd years back - and on the 16 channels in the bundle, I was   
   pretty sure I'd watch one regularly and I *might* look at another one   
   occasionally but do you think I could just buy those two? Heck no! The   
   CRTC (our equivalent to the FCC) let the cable companies persuade them   
   that they had to bundle the less attractive channels with the good ones   
   otherwise the weaker ones would fail so I had to pay for all 16. I don't   
   think I ever looked at anything except the one I was sure I would watch   
   but it turned to crap eventually. The CRTC did eventually allow a   
   provider to make smaller basic bundles and then offer everything else a   
   la carte: once you had the basics, you could have any 10 additional   
   channels for the same flat price of $19.95 or whatever it was. That was   
   a big improvement but the only provider of that packaging went belly up.   
      
   I think streaming is largely the same problem.   
      
   --   
   Rhino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)