Cut the Cord.

[lowheel]

I didn't see this in the thread, but we should get ready for a new disruptive technology called 5G and it is being rolled out later this year. 5G is up to ten times as fast as 4G and will be used within your home and between your home and your ISP.

 

So a year from now we need to have the same discussion all over.

 

http://www.businessi...1/#what-is-5g-1

5G could be a game changer. Cable providers and your local Telco have generally had a monopoly for what's called the "final mile" (service to the premises). If 5G can bring alternatives to the cable company that will give consumers choices and introduce competition where there often is little to none.

 

Exactly well said. Competition is always good. End users all benefit and companies can focus on customer service and the upsell of other services. treat people right and offer them best price for the best service and you get loyal customers for life

[BlackDiamondPar5]

removal of NN would allow your internet provider to block golfwrx because they have a stake in some comcast owned golf forum.

Yep... Spectrum, Comcast or name your provider could introduce their own social media sites, shopping sites etc and block users from other legal business services. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the internet. But that's what happens when a Verizon lacky is put in charge of the FCC.

[hdr_ric]

Anyone concerned that if too many people move to online service that the internet providers will jack the rates or start charging per gig?

 

Yup, this IS what's going to happen. Instead of one package through cable, everything will be divided up in small chunks which will probably end up costing more than what we used to pay. Net Neutrality will factor into this as well, in a big way from the ISP side.

 

Once they can dictate where the bandwidth is going, they'll start charging accordingly. Streaming something not a part of the ISP family? Extra charge. And it'll be put back on us because it's not like Netflix or any of these other streaking services are going to just eat the extra cost or make less profits.

 

I've been using YouTube TV for a bit over a month now and I'm really impressed by it. The streaming quality is perfect and I haven't run into any issues, with the exception of my phone losing control so if I need to pause or rewind, I'll basically need to reconnect to the Chromecast. If you have a newer Smart TV, I'm sure they make an app you can run directly from the TV itself.

Definitely think there's potential to what you say. Though I wouldn't write off the repeal of net neutrality too quickly. States are already threatening with their own and there are some HUGE players out there none too happy either like Google, Amazon, Netflix that can do something to offset it.

 

With 5G, it could mean not only Spectrum for broadband but I'd also have a choice of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc. They will compete viciously for customers. Gonna be interesting.

 

That's the intent of removing net neutrality. Competition and choices. That's the only way to drive prices down, innovation up, and service up.

 

This is absolutely not the intent of removing net neutrality. Net neutrality requires ISPs to provide the same speed to any streaming service running thru their system. ISPs hate this. Removing net neutrality allows ISPs to control the speed of competing streaming services. Hence, Comcast could slow down Hulu, YouTube, and the others just to make their cable product run better. ISPs want to charge streaming services to run on their system. Their argument is that they built the road, so they should be able to control the traffic. Removing net neutrality allows Comcast and other ISPs to control the internet, not just speed but content, as well.

 

^^^^^^THIS is a correct and accurate statement.

[Roadking2003]

removal of NN would allow your internet provider to block golfwrx because they have a stake in some comcast owned golf forum.

Yep... Spectrum, Comcast or name your provider could introduce their own social media sites, shopping sites etc and block users from other legal business services. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the internet. But that's what happens when a Verizon lacky is put in charge of the FCC.

 

And yet we had no "net neutrality" regulation for years and never had such problems. Try living in reality rather than negative dreams.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

removal of NN would allow your internet provider to block golfwrx because they have a stake in some comcast owned golf forum.

Yep... Spectrum, Comcast or name your provider could introduce their own social media sites, shopping sites etc and block users from other legal business services. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the internet. But that's what happens when a Verizon lacky is put in charge of the FCC.

 

And yet we had no "net neutrality" regulation for years and never had such problems. Try living in reality rather than negative dreams.

Net neutrality was irrelevant in the infancy of the internet. Saying it wasn't needed before so its not needed now fails to acknowledge its evolution. I'm also not saying NN was well written or all correct either, but with nothing we could be headed for trouble. I also get that certain services use significantly more bandwidth like video streaming services. I have no issue with consumption based pricing as I believe you should pay for what you use. But without NN your internet provider could sell you their streaming service with a higher level of data prioritization while they could degrade competing streaming services... and that is the crux of the issue and unfair competition.

[nix]

removal of NN would allow your internet provider to block golfwrx because they have a stake in some comcast owned golf forum.

Yep... Spectrum, Comcast or name your provider could introduce their own social media sites, shopping sites etc and block users from other legal business services. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the internet. But that's what happens when a Verizon lacky is put in charge of the FCC.

 

And yet we had no "net neutrality" regulation for years and never had such problems. Try living in reality rather than negative dreams.

 

I would wager companies are not keen on taking on businesses in court at high costs with no precedent or laws to back them up. Once it's codified in law that they can do it, they will do it without fear of lawsuits.

[J50L]

Another streaming website http://www.stream2watch.org

[lopey986]

removal of NN would allow your internet provider to block golfwrx because they have a stake in some comcast owned golf forum.

Yep... Spectrum, Comcast or name your provider could introduce their own social media sites, shopping sites etc and block users from other legal business services. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the internet. But that's what happens when a Verizon lacky is put in charge of the FCC.

 

And yet we had no "net neutrality" regulation for years and never had such problems. Try living in reality rather than negative dreams.

 

What's your definition of "never had problems"? Because where I live Comcast had 100gb data cabs with extreme throttling once you passed that (and if you cut the cord and stream, which is what many people were doing, you know that 100gb of data is nothing). Comcast was also intentionally throttling speed on Netflix because Netflix wouldn't pay them more money. As someone who only has internet from Comcast and streams everything else, I consider that a big F'ing problem and it was only the start before net neutrality rules were put in place.

[Sixcat]

removal of NN would allow your internet provider to block golfwrx because they have a stake in some comcast owned golf forum.

Yep... Spectrum, Comcast or name your provider could introduce their own social media sites, shopping sites etc and block users from other legal business services. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the internet. But that's what happens when a Verizon lacky is put in charge of the FCC.

 

And yet we had no "net neutrality" regulation for years and never had such problems. Try living in reality rather than negative dreams.

 

What's your definition of "never had problems"? Because where I live Comcast had 100gb data cabs with extreme throttling once you passed that (and if you cut the cord and stream, which is what many people were doing, you know that 100gb of data is nothing). Comcast was also intentionally throttling speed on Netflix because Netflix wouldn't pay them more money. As someone who only has internet from Comcast and streams everything else, I consider that a big F'ing problem and it was only the start before net neutrality rules were put in place.

 

Not taking sides and not going to argue. Just wanted to offer my experience with Comcast. I cut the cord in October 2011. My ISP is Comcast with 180 MBPS. My "data cap" is 1,024 GB's per month. My family of four stream everything, often with 4 or 5 devices going at once and have never approached the "data cap". After just checking my app, the most we have used was 814 GB in January where we had record low temperatures for 5 consecutive weeks. I can't recall ever having an issue with streaming quality of any kind. We also watch a ton of Netflix and have never had an issue with buffering or "throttling".

 

Maybe try reaching out to Comcast and see if you are on an outdated plan that can be updated to better serve your needs.

[lopey986]

removal of NN would allow your internet provider to block golfwrx because they have a stake in some comcast owned golf forum.

Yep... Spectrum, Comcast or name your provider could introduce their own social media sites, shopping sites etc and block users from other legal business services. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the internet. But that's what happens when a Verizon lacky is put in charge of the FCC.

 

And yet we had no "net neutrality" regulation for years and never had such problems. Try living in reality rather than negative dreams.

 

What's your definition of "never had problems"? Because where I live Comcast had 100gb data cabs with extreme throttling once you passed that (and if you cut the cord and stream, which is what many people were doing, you know that 100gb of data is nothing). Comcast was also intentionally throttling speed on Netflix because Netflix wouldn't pay them more money. As someone who only has internet from Comcast and streams everything else, I consider that a big F'ing problem and it was only the start before net neutrality rules were put in place.

 

Not taking sides and not going to argue. Just wanted to offer my experience with Comcast. I cut the cord in October 2011. My ISP is Comcast with 180 MBPS. My "data cap" is 1,024 GB's per month. My family of four stream everything, often with 4 or 5 devices going at once and have never approached the "data cap". After just checking my app, the most we have used was 814 GB in January where we had record low temperatures for 5 consecutive weeks. I can't recall ever having an issue with streaming quality of any kind. We also watch a ton of Netflix and have never had an issue with buffering or "throttling".

 

Maybe try reaching out to Comcast and see if you are on an outdated plan that can be updated to better serve your needs.

 

Like I said, PRIOR to net neutrality I was getting 100gb caps and Comcast intentionally throttled Netflix to try to extort more money from them. I've had no issues over the past couple years, no more caps and no more throttling of any services as is the law.

 

Net Neutrality repeal is set to take effect on April 23rd, depending on how all of the lawsuits over it's repeal shake out. We'll see how quickly comcast and their ilk roll things back to the pre net neutrality days when "we never had problems".

[Jagpilotohio]

I just signed up for directtv now for a 3 month trial to see if it might be something I’d do permanently. They could end this offer any time so hurry if you want in.

 

Prepay 3 months of their basic $35 a month package, $105, and receive a free Apple TV 4K, (retails for $179.)

 

https://www.directvnow.com/appletv

 

Since I wanted an Apple TV anyway it was a Total “no brainer” as they say.

 

I believe they have a 2 month trial for $70 and a free AmazonfireTV 4K offer going as well.

 

 

https://www.directvnow.com/firetv

 

Only hitch is you need their $60 a month package to get Golf channel. I’m just giving the basic package a try since I still have Golf channel on cable in the interim.

 

I also have amazon prime and PGA tour live already if I decide to cut the cord. DirectTv now Cloud DRV service is still in Beta testing but should be available in a few months. That will be the kicker for me. I want DVR service.

[Sixcat]

 

Like I said, PRIOR to net neutrality

 

When exactly did Net Neutrality come into effect?

 

I've been streaming exclusively in lieu of cable or satellite for 6-1/2 years without incident. I didn't have a "data cap" until 2017 and that cap is 1,024 GB per month. I have never come within 200 GB of reaching that cap, and that's with 2 teenage daughters and their friends constantly streaming several devices at once. If I did exceed that cap, i would consider the larger issue to fall with me for watching too much TV.

[lopey986]

Like I said, PRIOR to net neutrality

 

When exactly did Net Neutrality come into effect?

 

I've been streaming exclusively in lieu of cable or satellite for 6-1/2 years without incident. I didn't have a "data cap" until 2017 and that cap is 1,024 GB per month. I have never come within 200 GB of reaching that cap, and that's with 2 teenage daughters and their friends constantly streaming several devices at once. If I did exceed that cap, i would consider the larger issue to fall with me for watching too much TV.

 

Cool. There's plenty of information out there about what Comcast (and verizon, at&t) was doing prior to net neutrality laws that were put into place in 2015 if you feel like looking into it a little more in depth. I'm glad you've never had any issues, myself and plenty others have.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/6/13192832/comcast-xfinity-home-internet-data-caps-one-terabyte

 

Here's a good article on Comcast having to boost their data cap from 300gb to 1tb due to regulatory concerns from the FCC back at the end of 2016. With a repeal of the laws in place there will be no regulatory concerns for companies like comcast, at&t and verizon, thus they'll be free to do as they please. And if you're like me, you've only got ONE option for high speed internet, so it can be pretty take it or leave it.

 

Anyway, this is a golf forum, so I won't continue on anymore with net neutrality, but it's not that hard to find more information if you actually want to know how it may affect you in the future.

[Sixcat]

Like I said, PRIOR to net neutrality

 

When exactly did Net Neutrality come into effect?

 

I've been streaming exclusively in lieu of cable or satellite for 6-1/2 years without incident. I didn't have a "data cap" until 2017 and that cap is 1,024 GB per month. I have never come within 200 GB of reaching that cap, and that's with 2 teenage daughters and their friends constantly streaming several devices at once. If I did exceed that cap, i would consider the larger issue to fall with me for watching too much TV.

 

Cool. There's plenty of information out there about what Comcast (and verizon, at&t) was doing prior to net neutrality laws that were put into place in 2015 if you feel like looking into it a little more in depth. I'm glad you've never had any issues, myself and plenty others have.

 

https://www.theverge...ps-one-terabyte

 

Here's a good article on Comcast having to boost their data cap from 300gb to 1tb due to regulatory concerns from the FCC back at the end of 2016. With a repeal of the laws in place there will be no regulatory concerns for companies like comcast, at&t and verizon, thus they'll be free to do as they please. And if you're like me, you've only got ONE option for high speed internet, so it can be pretty take it or leave it.

 

Anyway, this is a golf forum, so I won't continue on anymore with net neutrality, but it's not that hard to find more information if you actually want to know how it may affect you in the future.

 

Again, I honestly not trying to be argumentative. But the Verge, like most other internet based "journalism" is notoriously biased as a source for reliable, factual content as reported by several "fact-checker" outlets. But taking the article at face value, 1TB (1,024 GB) of data per month is what I have, and it's a LOT! I pay $59.95 per month for the service and have never had any issue. To me it seems like a fair price for a ridiculously large amount of data. To put it into perspective, my cell carrier charges an equal amount for 10 GB of data per month.

[Jagpilotohio]

I always find it fascinating....and immensely irritating, that there are “levels” to pay for with internet speed and total GB’s used.

 

It’s like a big hose with water flowing through it. The providers just charge more based on how much they open the electronic valve.

 

It doesn’t actually “cost” them any extra to provide you with more.

 

It’s a little like charging for air. “Oh....there’s 5 of you in the house breathing? I strongly suggest you pay for more.

[Sixcat]

I always find it fascinating....and immensely irritating, that there are “levels” to pay for with internet speed and total GB’s used.

 

It’s like a big hose with water flowing through it. The providers just charge more based on how much they open the electronic valve.

 

It doesn’t actually “cost” them any extra to provide you with more.

 

It’s a little like charging for air. “Oh....there’s 5 of you in the house breathing? I strongly suggest you pay for more.

 

Doesn't all business do that in a free market society, though? I worked for 8 years designing cell grids for Verizon, Sprint and several other smaller cellular carriers. It doesn't cost them a nickel more to provide you with 10 GB of data as it does 2 GB, or unlimited. Remember the days of being limited to a few hundred minutes per month of talk time or a few dozen texts per month? It's their network so we pay their rates. Goes back to the 1% keeping us divided and distracted while the gap between the 1% and 99% gets wider. Titleist charges a premium for PRO V1's. Does it really cost Titleist that much more to produce PRO V1's from the same factories that produce Kirkland Signature's that sold for a quarter of the cost of a PRO V?

 

I'll stop now because I feel like i'm coming off as being argumentative. I'm really not attempting to be. Just curious and inquisitive with too much time on my hands at the moment.

[MidwestGolfBum]

I just signed up for directtv now for a 3 month trial to see if it might be something I'd do permanently. They could end this offer any time so hurry if you want in.

 

Prepay 3 months of their basic $35 a month package, $105, and receive a free Apple TV 4K, (retails for $179.)

 

https://www.directvnow.com/appletv

 

Since I wanted an Apple TV anyway it was a Total "no brainer" as they say.

 

I believe they have a 2 month trial for $70 and a free AmazonfireTV 4K offer going as well.

 

 

https://www.directvnow.com/firetv

 

Only hitch is you need their $60 a month package to get Golf channel. I'm just giving the basic package a try since I still have Golf channel on cable in the interim.

 

I also have amazon prime and PGA tour live already if I decide to cut the cord. DirectTv now Cloud DRV service is still in Beta testing but should be available in a few months. That will be the kicker for me. I want DVR service.

 

As a DirecTV Now subscriber since it's infancy and current beta tester of their DVR service, they still have a loooong way to go to catch up to the other streaming providers. The beta DVR feature works most of the time to record the shows you want, but getting them to play back isn't perfect yet, as expected in any beta. It hasn't actually improved much over the course of the entire beta and has gotten only slightly better with live tv not pausing randomly while watching. The menu is still a pain to get around in both the normal and beta apps and needs improvement, IMO.

 

I'm not unhappy with the service and given what I am paying for the package that is now $60, I find it hard to complain about too much. They also gave me "HBO for life" at one point last year that turns out life is actually a year, so I'm a little less than happy about that, as well.

[Ferguson]

There are only two ways cable, cell or internet providers increase their YOY revenue:

1. Price increases
   
2. New customers
   

 

Re: Does it really cost Titleist that much more to produce PRO V1's from the same factories that produce Kirkland Signature's that sold for a quarter of the cost of a PRO V?

 

From a production cost point of view – no.

From a share point of view –yes.

 

The cost for the PRO V1’s R&D has long been satisfied. Anything now is an enhancement.

 

Titleist enjoys market share and therefore they are burdened with the cost of advertising and sponsorship to maintain those strong share numbers.

 

What does Costco do in terms advertising and sponsorship?

Nothing.

[Jagpilotohio]

I always find it fascinating....and immensely irritating, that there are “levels” to pay for with internet speed and total GB’s used.

 

It’s like a big hose with water flowing through it. The providers just charge more based on how much they open the electronic valve.

 

It doesn’t actually “cost” them any extra to provide you with more.

 

It’s a little like charging for air. “Oh....there’s 5 of you in the house breathing? I strongly suggest you pay for more.

 

Doesn't all business do that in a free market society, though? I worked for 8 years designing cell grids for Verizon, Sprint and several other smaller cellular carriers. It doesn't cost them a nickel more to provide you with 10 GB of data as it does 2 GB, or unlimited. Remember the days of being limited to a few hundred minutes per month of talk time or a few dozen texts per month? It's their network so we pay their rates. Goes back to the 1% keeping us divided and distracted while the gap between the 1% and 99% gets wider. Titleist charges a premium for PRO V1's. Does it really cost Titleist that much more to produce PRO V1's from the same factories that produce Kirkland Signature's that sold for a quarter of the cost of a PRO V?

 

I'll stop now because I feel like i'm coming off as being argumentative. I'm really not attempting to be. Just curious and inquisitive with too much time on my hands at the moment.

 

I appreciate the give and take, but I’m not really on board with the comparison. As you suggest, I can buy a huge number of balls that rival Pro V1 at far less money.

 

My counter would be, I have lots of choices at lots of price points do buy balls that all do the same thing. Plus, I really don’t NEED golf Balls. They are a luxury good.

 

In contrast, I NEED internet access at home to function as a normal human being in modern society and I have very few choices and the prices are all very similar between my crappy limited choices.

 

......anyway....I guess I’ll drop it since we are spiraling off on a tangent about the morality and ethics of internet access pricing and corporate greed.

 

 

DirectTV Now has been ok thus far. 2 weeks into the trial. Will be interested to test the DVR function.

 

I’m sure they will keep records of everything I watch and record and then sell the info to someone to make a few extra bucks. Hey Facebook did it, why not everyone else? Our Privacy is so gone and everyone is acting surprised. There’s a reason I plan on being the last person on planet Earth NOT on Facebook. I’ve said it since day one. Evil bastards. Of course....all my posts are probably being tracked and sold on this site too!! LOL!!

 

 

[Jagpilotohio]

I just signed up for directtv now for a 3 month trial to see if it might be something I'd do permanently. They could end this offer any time so hurry if you want in.

 

Prepay 3 months of their basic $35 a month package, $105, and receive a free Apple TV 4K, (retails for $179.)

 

https://www.directvnow.com/appletv

 

Since I wanted an Apple TV anyway it was a Total "no brainer" as they say.

 

I believe they have a 2 month trial for $70 and a free AmazonfireTV 4K offer going as well.

 

 

https://www.directvnow.com/firetv

 

Only hitch is you need their $60 a month package to get Golf channel. I'm just giving the basic package a try since I still have Golf channel on cable in the interim.

 

I also have amazon prime and PGA tour live already if I decide to cut the cord. DirectTv now Cloud DRV service is still in Beta testing but should be available in a few months. That will be the kicker for me. I want DVR service.

 

As a DirecTV Now subscriber since it's infancy and current beta tester of their DVR service, they still have a loooong way to go to catch up to the other streaming providers. The beta DVR feature works most of the time to record the shows you want, but getting them to play back isn't perfect yet, as expected in any beta. It hasn't actually improved much over the course of the entire beta and has gotten only slightly better with live tv not pausing randomly while watching. The menu is still a pain to get around in both the normal and beta apps and needs improvement, IMO.

 

I'm not unhappy with the service and given what I am paying for the package that is now $60, I find it hard to complain about too much. They also gave me "HBO for life" at one point last year that turns out life is actually a year, so I'm a little less than happy about that, as well.

 

Yeah. I’ve read crappy things about the DVR in my research. And I totally agree that the guide and overall interface is cumbersome. It’s month to month so no big deal. I got my Apple TV out of it. I may go Hulu live. Heard there DVR is ok and functioning.

 

Hulu live with Golf channel is 39.95 a month, but it does look like direct tv now offers a lot more channels for a few bucks more at $60. We’ll see. Ongoing experiment.

[Rangeballz]

Youtube TV for me, especially since they added the Turner networks (a must for March Madness). $40/month now, and supposedly once you sign up that's your price forever.

[Roadking2003]

I always find it fascinating....and immensely irritating, that there are “levels” to pay for with internet speed and total GB’s used.

 

It’s like a big hose with water flowing through it. The providers just charge more based on how much they open the electronic valve.

 

It doesn’t actually “cost” them any extra to provide you with more.

 

It’s a little like charging for air. “Oh....there’s 5 of you in the house breathing? I strongly suggest you pay for more.

 

Just like lots and lots of other products.

 

When you go to a movie theater do you expect to get in free? Because one more attendee costs them nothing.

 

Business (and pricing) doesn't work that way.

[Roadking2003]

There are only two ways cable, cell or internet providers increase their YOY revenue:

1. Price increases
   
2. New customers
   

 

Just like thousands of other businesses.

[Roadking2003]

Yeah. I’ve read crappy things about the DVR in my research. And I totally agree that the guide and overall interface is cumbersome. It’s month to month so no big deal. I got my Apple TV out of it. I may go Hulu live. Heard there DVR is ok and functioning.

 

Hulu live with Golf channel is 39.95 a month, but it does look like direct tv now offers a lot more channels for a few bucks more at $60. We’ll see. Ongoing experiment.

 

If you are looking for the best DVR on the market it's TiVo. I've had several for a few years and they are wonderful.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

There are only two ways cable, cell or internet providers increase their YOY revenue:

[*]Price increases

[*]New customers

 

 

Well Ferg that's not a complete picture. Developing and selling new product lines has also been key to increasing revenue.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I always find it fascinating....and immensely irritating, that there are “levels” to pay for with internet speed and total GB’s used.

 

It’s like a big hose with water flowing through it. The providers just charge more based on how much they open the electronic valve.

 

It doesn’t actually “cost” them any extra to provide you with more.

 

It’s a little like charging for air. “Oh....there’s 5 of you in the house breathing? I strongly suggest you pay for more.

A couple clarifications, it actually does cost more to provide customers with more, since the internet providers have to buy equipment, fiber etc to increase data capacity. Sure the marginal cost to provide a little more is nothing but when it hits a threshold and then they have to build, which costs them money. Of course the alternative is for the internet provider to do nothing, then QoS suffers.

 

I have no problem with demand pricing but do have an issue with allowing internet providers to provide QoS that is discriminatory, which effectively what the repeal of NN will allow.

[MidwestGolfBum]

I always find it fascinating....and immensely irritating, that there are "levels" to pay for with internet speed and total GB's used.

 

It's like a big hose with water flowing through it. The providers just charge more based on how much they open the electronic valve.

 

It doesn't actually "cost" them any extra to provide you with more.

 

It's a little like charging for air. "Oh....there's 5 of you in the house breathing? I strongly suggest you pay for more.

A couple clarifications, it actually does cost more to provide customers with more, since the internet providers have to buy equipment, fiber etc to increase data capacity. Sure the marginal cost to provide a little more is nothing but when it hits a threshold and then they have to build, which costs them money. Of course the alternative is for the internet provider to do nothing, then QoS suffers.

 

I have no problem with demand pricing but do have an issue with allowing internet providers to provide QoS that is discriminatory, which effectively what the repeal of NN will allow.

 

The part in bold couldn't be more true. I sell to several T2 SPs on the IT hardware side of things and when you go talk to their CISO and CIOs about what their concern and direction is its about moving everything to 100G+ internally, which is far from cheap, so they will be able to keep up with all of the various demands on their networks. The race to 400G networks is already on and is shaping up to be very interesting. That and they now need to build out more and more IPTV offerings over traditional set top boxes to give customers new options, retain current customers, and just try to compete against the likes of YoutubeTV, Sling, etc. which has massive costs in both building out the service with either internal or 3rd party options and then also having the servers, firewalls, routers, and other necessary hardware to make that kind of solution work across the country in multiple data centers.

[c7015]

Kodi and SportsDevil

 

Gotta keep it updated, has been stable recently ... would love an HD antenna that had some range

 

Buddy of mine with an android box was getting me to look into IPTV for him but the box seemed to reject any 3rd party app so I have yet to try on my own...

[ChristopherMcDonald]

hacked firestick, iFab IPTV, comes out to about $32 for 3 months of service. All premium channels, all PPV fights, and of course, all the golf.

[md1m]

Youtube TV for me, especially since they added the Turner networks (a must for March Madness). $40/month now, and supposedly once you sign up that's your price forever.

 

You missed the $35/month deadline by two weeks. If you had it before March 13, it's $35 forever. If that ever changes will take a look at the competition at that time.