YMMV, of course, but we have UVerse for this year at least. We only have one DVR in the living room and I can watch stuff recorded there in the living room or the bedroom tv.

SI

Here is the problem with depending on ESPN3 - it requires a subscription to ESPN. If you try to access it from somewhere new, it will ask you your provider/user information. Cutting the cord pretty much cuts off from (legal) ESPN3 content as well.

We're preparing to dump FiOS this week, and go net only. Annoying that Verizon is basically all-in with their multi-part packages (presumably to discourage this) and don't want to offer a reasonably priced net-only option...so it looks like Comcast (ugh).

Just did the same thing here with Time Warner, who basically refused to do me an internet-only package (it would have cost almost as much as the TV/phone/internet package I did have), so I went with a DSL ISP (literally the only other ISP for my location, ugh...).

So far, so good. Streaming with a Roku has been great, and I might get an actual HDTV antenna to pick up local broadcasts.

Just cut the chord yesterday.. We'll see how this goes, but in theory we should be just fine. It was actually cheaper per month to get Internet and Phone rather than just Internet. So I guess I will have a home phone that I wont know the number of.

I'm faced with the same great choices at my new home in FL. Verizon slow-as-shit internet or Comcastic. That's a shit sandwich of choices.

What's actually considered a good choice for TV and/or internet then?

Most people who have Time Warner hate it.

Is Charter cable all that great? Is AT&T's Uverse the bomb?

Is there some cable/cable type company that even, say, 50% of the people who have experience like?

Well, to be fair, most people that I know have had nothing but good things to say about the performance of Comcast internet. Its just their customer service that's sucky and TV performance apparently.

Charter everything is pretty crappy. I had their TV for 2-3 years before switching because they kept upping the prices and not offering discounts. Even though I have them only for internet now (no other providers, not even DSL), I still get about 2-3 flyers a week asking me to rejoin.

I've had Comcast for over 8 years now. Over that time I've had a few minor issues here and there, but the customer service has almost always been pretty helpful and both times I've had people out to install something, they've been great.

I have had to go to the Comcast "place" twice. That was an exercise in misery - like going to the DMV - but twice out of two years isn't so bad I knew what the expect going in.

Maybe I've just been lucky so far.

There's a chance that - if the Comcast/Time Warner deal goes through - Comcast will pretty much exit Michigan more or less and give everything to Charter, I believe. Not looking forward to that.

I haven't had to deal with Comcast customer service too much, but sometimes I'd have billing issues. Such as them charging me for renting a modem when I had bought mine from the beginning. Which was 'taken care of', but it really wasn't.

Internet performance has been mostly rock solid, though.

I'm cutting the cord tonight. Actually on hold with TWC service as I type.

Cable works a lot better if you buy a TiVo and throw their POS DVR in the trash. Bundling wise I might just go back to cable this fall when my 2 years on DTv is up. It gets so much more expensive over time. Cable wants to make too good of a deal to turn down.

I do need to see if antenna has gotten better in my area. I was in the "sha right" range for Pittsburgh locals previously. Youngstown locals have gotta be the worst in the nation. Murder per capita and corruption and the Browns.

I loved the Verizon FIOS in Richmond. It was really fast.

SI

Time Warner Road Runner is pretty good, the techs are decent (typically better than the TV techs).

I definitely have internet-only with them, and would be more expensive to add phone or TV to my package (something like +$30 for phone -$10 for both or something). I have the 30 down / 5 up package, and pay $78/month for it (as opposed to $150+ when I had TV and phone as well). I pay $10/month for Verizon's home phone cell station, $8/month Netflix, $79/year Amazon Prime, and have a TV antenna over the garage for local TV.

My son is very disappointed that most of the NBA playoffs have been on ESPN so he hasn't been able to watch Lebron James very much...

When I lived in Chicago I had WOW (formerly Wide Open West): http://www.wowway.com/home-map

I can't recommend them highly enough. Performance was very good, prices were reasonable, but customer service (including techs) was unbelievably good.

Two examples:

When you have techs come out to install cablecards in a Tivo from other companies, they will invariably either a) have no idea what they're doing or b) give you a lecture about how cablecards and/or the Tivo are the worst things possible. WOW techs, on the other hand, generally knew what they were doing with the cable cards & Tivo, or, if not, were excited about figuring out how to do it. I.e. actual techs as opposed to cable "plumbers".

When you have to call tech support you get someone who is personable, knowledgeable, and tends to be a very good troubleshooter. There's also no sense at all of a rush to get you off the phone within a particular time period.

I can't recommend them enough. If they ever come to Maine I will switch back immediately.

We have WOW here in Detroit. It's pretty much the only cable alternative to Comcast (though UVerse is available too). The few people I know who had switched from Comcast to WOW, promptly switched back to Comcast after a few weeks.

I have looked into to switching - for money reasons - but WOW just didn't have the channel line-up I liked it.

Does espn3 still require a subscription to espn? Or can you also get it through these ISPs?

ESPN3.com FAQ

I'm thinking over the air networks + espn3 would deliver plenty of college sports.

There are only some pretty rare circumstances where you would get an ISP with access to ESPN3 without having a cable subscription that includes ESPN. ESPN is fairly smart about this: they aren't giving you free access to sports- it's just an add-on to ESPN. For a short while I had internet but no cable through Verizon. Whenever I would log into ESPN3 (as it always requires to login through your cable provider), I would be blocked from getting ESPN3 content.

I put in my zip code here:
Channel Finder - ESPN3
I'm in Houston and about 15 come up. There's AT&T and Comcast, the phone and cable dominant telecoms which I hate deciding between. There's a couple of smaller ISPs that deliver internet service, probably over AT&T's phone lines, and you can bundle that up with DirectTV or DISH. And there are a bunch that look like bundling ISPs where their zip code algorithm is mediocre and they offer bundle packages but not in the Houston area.

I'm sure there are some providers and loopholes you can take advantage of but I suspect they few and far between. It's the whole pile of crap about how we allow telecom monopolies for municipalities in this country and how they try to block competition at every turn. It's easy to ratchet up costs and deliver worse service when there are no viable alternatives.

SI

Well ESPN finally cut my access to ESPN3, after not having a subscription to Comcast/ESPN for about 3 years. I guess they do eventually audit espn3.com accounts.

Worth the 13 minutes.

Oh, so btw.. in no surprise, the Supreme Court ruled that Aereo was akin to a cable provider and so has to be retransmission fees. Basically, Aereo will either get a lot more expensive, or will die.

Btw, it was 6-3 decision, written by Breyer (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting).

FWIW, the three dissenting justices also thought Aereo was an impermissible infringement on the network copyrights, but for a different reason.

No surprise.

So, while they lost the case, Aereo is still working. I plan on watching Brazil - Chile using it. Wonder when they have to shut down?

Well crap - looks like its shutting down at 11:30 AM EST today.

So, I'm in the market for a better streaming device than my Wii. Lean now is the Roku 3. But I secretly long for one box that would combine the streaming and device-based stuff that Roku seems to do really well, along with a HDTV antenna.

I don't see anything on the market like this. Doesn't that just feel like the next generation that has to land for people like us (cable cutters)? I'm not in any urgent situation, so if there's a sense that a Roku 4 with HDTV bunny ears is right around the corner, I'll save my $95 and wait it out.

Any tips?

If you also feel the need for a new TV, you could just get a smart tv, as those do OTA feeds. Otherwise, the closest I see is this, but although it has an option, it doesn't appear to work with antennas.

I don't see a Roku with an antenna coming any time soon (if at all). Roku is a very simple thing - it's a streaming box. It is designed as a one stop solution to move all your streaming needs to a TV - Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon Prime, Watch ESPN, MLB.TV, MLS Live, etc, etc.

I don't think they'd gain anything from bundling it with an antenna. Those are cheap enough as it is.

TiVo Roamio does all that but its like 6 times as expensive as a Roku. Well Netflix, Hulu(not sure about others)

Roamio is a fantastic thing though. Tivo made my decision to cut the cord so much easier (being able to record TV is a necessary thing for me).

It does Netflix and Hulu. Not Amazon Prime though.

wow, just saw what my jailbroken apple tv2 can be sold for on ebay. well, that's going up on the site this weekend.

in the meantime i use my xbox, and will wait to see what (if anything) apple comes out with in september. only thing i kinda miss through xbox is showtime, but not really enough to buy a new streaming system anyway

edit: i guess showtime is on xbox now too. that solves that.

Oh wow... I didn't realize they were selling for nearly 3 times what I bought mine for. I knew I should have bought more back then...

Most current TVs (and since the digital conversion) have built-in tuners, so Roku doesn't need one. You can buy a separate tuner box for like $40 if your TV is a really old one.

Rabbit ears won't work for me, so I've got one on the roof running lines into my two TVs. Wish me luck - since I got my roof redone and the little cupola thing removed that the antenna was on, the antenna is about 18" lower than it was, and I'm getting hiccups on one channel. Going on the roof soon to add an extension pole, if you don't hear from me you'll know it went horribly wrong...

Ridiculously exciting news for Cord Cutters:

Dish goes after cord-cutters with Sling TV, a $20 per month service


This should be great when it actually comes out! $20 a month with no contracts makes it actually a great deal, even if its just for ESPN and ESPN2! Of course stream quality and the such is important, but this could be a game changer.

Interesting.

That is interesting.

The article I read on The Verge indicated there may be some limitations with ESPN that we'd hear more about down the road, but either way it's a step in the right direction.

What the hell is "Maker"?

Probably no HD nor NFL broadcasts.

It'll have to allow HD. Every other streaming service does (Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, etc, etc). If they don't allow HD, it'll fail on launch.

I bet the limitations are no DVR capabilities.

Oh, and the sentence from The Verge article is this:

This is Dish's Sling TV: an internet TV service that lets you stream ESPN for $20 | The Verge

So probably some limits on Android and iOS, but not on Roku, etc.

Had to look it up. YouTube content creator that owns or produces many of the popular shows.

I was talking strictly ESPN, but you may be right on the HD. With the Time Warner app live NFL broadcasts are blacked out.

I doubt either the NBA or the NHL would allow DISH to use its programming for a mobile service too, when they sell their own online product.

Seems like a great way to accelerate the spread of data caps for everyone.

Pretty much.

To be followed shortly by consumer lawsuit alleging anti-competitive practices.

I doubt any such consumer lawsuit would succeed. After all, why shouldn't someone pay for the bandwidth they use (the data caps aren't going to be shut outs, I bet - just a pay as you go above something like 300 GB a month)?