OT: DirecTv--Should Dale make the switch?

Post by **Dale** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 9:19 pm

Who needs Consumers Reports when we have the smart people of C&F?

So, I have three TV sets in my home and Charter cable. Not digital. Just cable. It costs about $50. The picture quality is semi-sucky. Also, I have a ReplayTV Digital Video Recorder on the main TV.

SO, I'm thinking about switching to satellite--DirecTv. They have a deal on now--free installation on up to 3 TVs and the "Total Choice+" channel line up, which I understand includes local channels, for $39.00 / month. I think I have to pay $5 each for the two extra TV sets, bringing it up to about $50. Same as I pay for Charter cable but, I suspect, better quality and definitely a better selection of channels.

I could upgrade to Charter Digital, but they irritate me by making it very hard to figure out from their website how much it'll cost. But, I'm thinking $80 or so.

Questions:

Does anyone have enough experience with this satellite deal to advise me?

Any problems with making my ReplayTV work with DirecTv?

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 9:32 pm

With "rabbit ears" I get the following networks:

National Broadcasting Company
Columbia Broadcasting System
American Broadcasting Company
Oklahoma Educational Television Authority
Trinity Broadcasting Network
Warner Brothers Network
Fox Broadcasting Company
KRSC (Annenberg/CPB Network)
United Paramount Network
Pax Network
LeSEA Broadcasting
Golden Eagle Broadcasting (Oral Roberts Ministries)

There are no monthly fees.

Rando7 · Post by **Rando7** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:11 pm

Dale. I have Directv and am happy with it. You don't save much over cable but the quality is indeed much better. Very occasionally I will lose the satellite signal (usually not more than 30-45 minutes) if thunderheads are to the Southwest - of course cable is not infallible either and I would occasionally lose that too.

Don't know about the replay TV thing but I'm guessing it would probably work.

Tak_the_whistler · Post by **Tak_the_whistler** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:18 pm

second Rando7 here, and I do think the recording gadget hooked to the TV works for the stuff flowing in from the satellite, unless they send the programme coded (like Wowow), but as long as the visual/sounds appears on the TV it should be able to record what's on.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:25 pm

Throw the TV out and learn to play the whistle instead.

ErikT · Post by **ErikT** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 11:42 pm

Yep, kill the TV. Mine died 6 years ago and I haven't missed it... well just once in a while, but we have a 4" B&W that we get out when the big game is on (or sometimes Sesame Street). Just say no to cable, Dale. You'll go through withdrawals for a while, but I wore an aluminum skull cap for a while and that really cut back on the mind probes.

p.s. unfortunately, I have replaced my TV addiction with the need to click on this site every 5 seconds.

DCrom · Post by **DCrom** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 11:44 pm

Finally, a question I can be somewhat authoritative on.

I've worked in digital TV and the closely related cable-based broadband (DOCSIS) for the last 6 or 7 years - currently working on HD TV, so I may be wrong, but I'm not unsure of myself

From your image-quality remarks, I'm assuming your current cable service is analog - basically, the same stuff you'd pull from the air with an antenna. Yes, cable quality here is often pretty bad; despite all the cable providers do to keep the signal clean.

The real step up is digital vs analog. Though digital can be a lot higher quality than analog, typically providers (either cable or satellite) trade signal quality vs the number of programs to give you a signal that's usually (subjectively) about the same a really good VHS tape (not DVD quality, though they could if they wanted to).

Upgrading to digital is a good idea - whether you go cable or satellite should be based on the cost and available programs rather than the delivery mechanism. That being said - unless you plan to get cable modem service and the bundled price is cheaper, I'd probably advise satellite. Why? Because, on the whole, it's more flexible. Expensive as satellites are, installing and maintaining cable is ALSO pretty expensive, and cable requires more maintenance. Many of the smaller local cable operators still haven't modernized their plant enough to handle either digital TV or cable modem service - upgrades may come slowly, if at all, even though you can fit 6-10 times as many digital programs in cable as you can analog programs.

And when HD TV appears (starting to happen here in the US - it will become more and more important over the next few years) anyone stuck on analog cable will be out of luck - HD TV is digital-only. You may not be able to receive it using your current satellite box - but new set-top boxes are cheap, and the satellites themselves can already handle the signal.

Disavantages of satellite? Local programming may be compromised (depends on your area). And, as already noted, some weather conditions can affect your signal.

Which would I get? Probably satellite - unless I could get a good deal on a DOCSIS cable modem setup by staying with cable. But except for that, I think most of the advantages are with the satellite system.

ErikT · Post by **ErikT** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 11:58 pm

Man, why'd you have to go and post an intelligent, on-topic post. Way to throw off our rhythm.

herbivore12 · Post by **herbivore12** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:58 am

Dale seems well-balanced enough to be able to deal with having a TV around, though why anyone needs more than about ten channels, I don't know. In principle, I'm with Eric on this one.

We have basic cable now, because when we had digital cable and several hundred channels, we noticed that a) we didn't watch much TV anyway; b) when we did, it was on one of about six or seven channels of the hundreds avialable; and c) we were paying way too much money just to get the one or two channels way up in the spectrum that digital provided. Haven't noticed much change since going basic. Most days, the TV doesn't even get switched on, so . . .

My own story with TV: when I was living alone, a single guy in a nice apartment near San Diego, I was watching a lot of TV. It was there, it was easy to feel like I was connected to others because we all watched the same shows (even though we didn't watch them together in the same room), TV was easy and fed you everything you needed, including cues about when to laugh, etc. So one night, maybe 2:00 a.m., I'm watching an infomercial -- an infomercial! -- about a fishing lure called "The Banjo Minnow". An amazing lure, apparently, swims just like an injured fish, and Big Bass Can't Help Biting! And at some point I realize, hey, wait, I don't fish. I don't eat fish (I was a vegan even back then). I wish people didn't fish. But this infomercial is enthralling. As almost all TV is enthralling, because it's easy (mostly) and fun and all it asks of you is to watch some ads once in a while, maybe buy something from an advertisre, and all will be well. So the next day, freaked out, I traded my big TV for a saltwater fish tank set-up, and started a long hobby of keeping and propogating live corals and reef animals. And had all this time to do things like learn different kinds of music, go hiking, fly kites . . . And I had no TV for the next five or six years. Since marrying my wife, I've had a TV, but luckily she disdains most TV as much as I do, so we do fine on maybe two hours a week to watch specials on various channels, or catch the weather or news reports. And life is no poorer, and maybe richer, than it might have been if we sat there staring in the same direction, at the same screen, but not doing anything or going anywhere. Mostly, the TV is used for watching films on DVD, or to play back videos of performances for critique, and such.

However, some of my best friends make their livings producing stuff for TV, and there's some quality stuff broadcast, so I'm all for the medium. Just turns out that, for me, it's too addictive and enthralling, and would keep me from doing things that take more effort, but are ultimately more rewarding. More an indictment of my own shortcomings than of TV, but I like being free of its captivating power.

Another nice thing about not having a TV in plain view: you're not fored to arrange your room and furniture to optimize viewing angles, but can arrange much more freely. Getting rid of the TV opened up all these design possibilities; I'd never really noticed how strong the draw of TV is before then, and how people will even stare at the blank screed of a TV that's not turned on, because that's how the room's arranged. It was nice to have a few years of withdrawal, for all those reasons.

I'm Aaron, and I am a TV-holic . . .

madguy · Post by **madguy** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 7:10 am

My stepson had sattelite TV, and every time the wind blew hard, he lost reception.

Also, why more than ten channels? Easy... The Animal Planet, Discovery, TV Food Network, and on and on!

~Larry

cj · Post by cj » Mon Nov 24, 2003 7:38 am

I too am quite content with just the 5 channels I get via the rabbit-ear method, as well as the lack of cost, but I have an almost-7-year-old son, and occasionally it would be nice to have the Disney channel or the Cartoon Network. However, we get around it by renting movies, catching special movies when they come on TV (i.e., Wonderful World of Disney on ABC, Nick Jr. on CBS) and just watching cartoons on Sat. morning, like I did when I was growing up. We go to the movies sometimes for a special outing (Brother Bear is really good if you have kids, and even if you don't!) I might also add that I'm not a sports buff, so I can live without ESPN.

I would like to have A&E, Discovery, HBO (for some of their original shows) and a few other cable/satellite offerings, but haven't yet wanted to pay the $40+ for basic. Neither my son nor I seems to have suffered any psychological trauma from doing things this way. There's very little out there that can't be bought or rented on video/DVD anymore or lived without in the first place.

finkelsj · Post by **finkelsj** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 7:50 am

Funny, we just had this discussion last night. We haven't had TV for many years and were discussing the merits of getting it again. Here in Atlanta it would work out that if we got basic digital cable it would run $55 a month, satellite for the same channels would cost around $40 (unless we wanted a DVR then it would be about $45 a month + cost of DVR).

The problem I have is that's around $600 a year. Let's see, that's about 6 Burke's or maybe 20 tweaked Shaw's or 10 Shaw's and 20 Generations. Maybe even 3 Burke's and 30 books, which would occupy me for the year.

I don't think going without TV is for everyone, but based on what folks have told me it still sucks. Oh yeah, I design networks that support cable modems, cable TV and cable telephones for a living and used to work in satellite signal distribution. So it's not like I know anything about it

mamakash · Post by **mamakash** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:21 am

Here in central New Jersey, we always had excellent reception for the small rabbit ear TV . . . until the towers fell and the highest point to put an antenna went, too. The downstairs TV has had cable since '83. Which is good, because the antenna on the roof caused our house to get hit by lightning too many times. We don't have any choice but to have some cable, but we cut it back to limited basic. Yes, it's boring and it sucks . . . but even with full cable, TV is still boring and still sucks. I miss Discovery and History Channel, but that's about it. Fourty dollars a month is just too much for two channels I like.
So, now I watch a lot more PBS or video tapes or use the money to buy Buffy on DVD. I end up enjoying the DVD sets more than I would the cable. And I have an awesome MST3K collection.
I end up spending more time on the internet, anyway.

nancymae · Post by **nancymae** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

We live in an area that doesn't permit us to get cable or regular Tv...so we are STUCK with Directv. When the satellites change...sometimes during pivital points in your program...the blasted thing turns off, then turns on a different channel. This happens every day for us around 8:30 pm. Also, ice, wind and snow play havoc with your reception. You get a nice picture, except that it just stays still. You have to be careful when taking off the snow/ice...cuz you may disrupt the exact position of the dish.

Also, since we live in an area that they have a local feed (for extra money) to be able to get local abc/nbc/and cbs you have to pay extra for PBS (it's considered a premium channel). I do like the option of having east coast/west coast feeds...so I don't get PBS...which really sucks!! Our bill is $50.00. Oh yeah...one thing about directtv...they have freeviews of different musical concerts. But, alas, no tin whistles.

I would like to hurl my satellite tv into outter space!!!

JMHO

Nancymae

thurlowe · Post by **thurlowe** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:35 am

I'm surprised at all the sanctimonious

TV teetotallers here, but then I knew C&Fers weren't typical. You people clearly think your time is too valuable to spend it in front of the tube. You're wrong of course. I have to believe that.

Anyway, Dale, I say stick with cable, unless you're a handy guy. That little satellite dish, if it gets out of alignment on your roof, will cause you grief.

Cara