(no subject)
Jun. 23rd, 2013 08:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chhotiiGot around to calling about utilities in the apartment on Friday morning. The building includes gas for stove, heat, hot water, water, sewer, etc. in the condo fee; I'm just responsible for electricity and phone/Internet/cable. According to the management, my options for phone/Internet/cable were Comcast, or RCN. Eeks! Choices! Decisions!
Anyway, called NStar to get electricity, which was straightforward enough. Then they offered at the end of their call to transfer me to some call center that would talk to me about Comcast service. Sure, whatever. The pathologically perky Comcast rep quoted me $49.99 per month for an introductory rate for just telephone and Internet. When the introductory rate period ends, it goes up to $79.99 per month. Agreeing to a 1-year contract means that the introductory rate period lasts an entire 12 months; otherwise, it would be only 3 months until the monthly goes up. Even with the one-year contract to lock in the lower rate for longer, one has the option to cancel and owe nothing for 30 days after installation. I figure either I will figure out that Comcast phone and Internet are unbearably suckful, and/or find a better option, within 30 days; or else, by July 30, I will be really sure I want the service for an entire 12 months. It's not like I'm going to decide on a whim to live without phone service and Internet. So the 1-year contract seems like no problem.
Is it supposed to be this expensive? I have no idea; I have had other people in my household be the designated phone-bill wrangler for, um, my entire life, I think. I went onto RCN's website while the Comcast rep was telling me what a fantastic deal I was getting. Stupid RCN website seemed to think that the apartment is not in their service area.
I did not opt for cable. The package that included basic cable cost $70 per month more. I'm sure to add the channels that I actually watch would be a whole lot more per month than that. So, let me get this straight... $70 per month to get a whole bunch of crappy television that I don't enjoy watching? No way!
I am not in the habit of turning on the television and surfing through the channels for something to watch. In my experience, the results tend to be frustrating and disappointing and usually not rewarding. Occasionally I'll find something mildly interesting, but it usually has a lot of ads.
So, now I'm trying to figure out how to meet my TV needs without cable. Usually I watch specific, selected things on the TV, most of which are available elsewhere. Amazon Instant Video has Game of Thrones, eventually, for $4 per HD episode. Netflix gets the Breaking Bad seasons... eventually. Netflix is a whole lot cheaper monthly than basic cable, and way better for random old movie and TV-series rerun watching (no ads). I haven't been watching baseball lately, but if I wanted to, MLB.TV is $129 PER YEAR, plus I guess I would need to shell out $99 once for an Apple TV or something like that. Still way cheaper than cable. (Although, due to blackout restrictions, I would be not be following the Red Sox so much.)
The big unsolved problem is tennis. This article explains the agony of the tennis fan who is not willing to pay $Inf per month for fancy cable packages since the rise of Tennis Channel. Tennis Channel (and, with it, the rights to watch all the top tennis in the world) is owned by a bunch of boneheads. They should have some subscription streaming service. Do they not realize that there are people out there, like me, who will pay to watch tennis, but aren't that interested in random crappy cable TV stations. What I would be willing pay them to just watch tennis would be much more per month than the sliver they would get from the cable company if I added the super-fancy all-the-sports-channels package to a cable plan. We could both come out way ahead, if we could just bypass the cable company and their 500 channels of shit.
Cable TV sucks, and deserves to die.
Oh, well. I think maybe I can survive without watching tennis. We'll see how it goes.
Anyway, called NStar to get electricity, which was straightforward enough. Then they offered at the end of their call to transfer me to some call center that would talk to me about Comcast service. Sure, whatever. The pathologically perky Comcast rep quoted me $49.99 per month for an introductory rate for just telephone and Internet. When the introductory rate period ends, it goes up to $79.99 per month. Agreeing to a 1-year contract means that the introductory rate period lasts an entire 12 months; otherwise, it would be only 3 months until the monthly goes up. Even with the one-year contract to lock in the lower rate for longer, one has the option to cancel and owe nothing for 30 days after installation. I figure either I will figure out that Comcast phone and Internet are unbearably suckful, and/or find a better option, within 30 days; or else, by July 30, I will be really sure I want the service for an entire 12 months. It's not like I'm going to decide on a whim to live without phone service and Internet. So the 1-year contract seems like no problem.
Is it supposed to be this expensive? I have no idea; I have had other people in my household be the designated phone-bill wrangler for, um, my entire life, I think. I went onto RCN's website while the Comcast rep was telling me what a fantastic deal I was getting. Stupid RCN website seemed to think that the apartment is not in their service area.
I did not opt for cable. The package that included basic cable cost $70 per month more. I'm sure to add the channels that I actually watch would be a whole lot more per month than that. So, let me get this straight... $70 per month to get a whole bunch of crappy television that I don't enjoy watching? No way!
I am not in the habit of turning on the television and surfing through the channels for something to watch. In my experience, the results tend to be frustrating and disappointing and usually not rewarding. Occasionally I'll find something mildly interesting, but it usually has a lot of ads.
So, now I'm trying to figure out how to meet my TV needs without cable. Usually I watch specific, selected things on the TV, most of which are available elsewhere. Amazon Instant Video has Game of Thrones, eventually, for $4 per HD episode. Netflix gets the Breaking Bad seasons... eventually. Netflix is a whole lot cheaper monthly than basic cable, and way better for random old movie and TV-series rerun watching (no ads). I haven't been watching baseball lately, but if I wanted to, MLB.TV is $129 PER YEAR, plus I guess I would need to shell out $99 once for an Apple TV or something like that. Still way cheaper than cable. (Although, due to blackout restrictions, I would be not be following the Red Sox so much.)
The big unsolved problem is tennis. This article explains the agony of the tennis fan who is not willing to pay $Inf per month for fancy cable packages since the rise of Tennis Channel. Tennis Channel (and, with it, the rights to watch all the top tennis in the world) is owned by a bunch of boneheads. They should have some subscription streaming service. Do they not realize that there are people out there, like me, who will pay to watch tennis, but aren't that interested in random crappy cable TV stations. What I would be willing pay them to just watch tennis would be much more per month than the sliver they would get from the cable company if I added the super-fancy all-the-sports-channels package to a cable plan. We could both come out way ahead, if we could just bypass the cable company and their 500 channels of shit.
Cable TV sucks, and deserves to die.
Oh, well. I think maybe I can survive without watching tennis. We'll see how it goes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-06-23 12:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-23 03:23 pm (UTC)I don't know if they offer FIOS whereever this apartment is, but the first-year monthly fee for FIOS internet (way better experience than Comcast cable internet) and an unmetered call-anywhere phone line was under $60/month. (It goes up a bit after the first year and more after the second year, but agreeing to another contract probably knocks it back down to around there again.) Their deal including TV was hugely better, though, still under $100 for everything.
If it feels like there's a murky shifting mix of special offers, lock-ins, and sketchy deals offered by both the companies and an endless cast of slimy third-parties, that's exactly right. It's a cruddy business.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-24 03:49 am (UTC)Verizon keeps saying that the FCC's report says they're better than Comcast, But I've looked at the report, FiOS is slightly better for some aspects, they both provide Internet service at speeds equal to or faster than the advertised speeds. So I'm not that concerned about the speed difference.
https://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america
If you pay for Amazon Prime, you can get some of their instant download videos for free.
There's also Hulu and Hulu Plus for watching TV programs.
In the Boston area, you can signup for service from aereo.com which provides you with local TV channels via the Internet. They also provide a DVR service to record shows available from network TV, including sports games.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-24 09:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-24 09:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-26 01:58 am (UTC)Technically I have cable (for $6/month) but the channels I get are more-or-less the same as broadcast, so I'm in the same boat. I, too, was surprised how few sporting events are available without cable-- virtually no baseball, (apparently) no basketball or hockey until late rounds of the playoffs, and little tennis. Football is the only major sport that is mostly viewable via the airwaves (but not at this time of year, of course).