Happiness Is A Cut Cord

[Avid Listener]

Read the first post in the thread. It doesn't say "cutting the cord makes people happy." It says very clearly that 77% of those who HAVE cut the cord are happy. Very different statement.

Thread launches consist of a post and a title. What's in the post must be read and understood in conjunction with the title. The two things are parts of a larger whole. When one includes the statement that "Happiness Is A Cut Cord", then in that context, it is clear that it is the cutting of the cord that leads to happiness. If the post was to be interpreted as meaning "Happiness makes people cut the cord", then the title would have reinforced that argument.

There's also the fact that the lead post in the thread includes a link to an article in the USA today, which includes this lead sentence (my emphasis added), "Most pay-TV customers who cut the cord are happy that they parted ways with their cable company."

That lead sentence linked in the launch post is as much a part of the launch post as anything typed by the launcher. So, it's clear that the thread is about two things. One, it is that "cutting the cord makes people happy" and two, it is about totally severing all ties to the cable company, not just dropping cable television but keeping broadband internet.

 

[TheBigA]

Thread launches consist of a post and a title. What's in the post must be read and understood in conjunction with the title. The two things are parts of a larger whole.

Yes I understand that. That's what I was pointing out to you. You're focusing on the title, which was explained in the first post. In fact, the original poster has explained several times in this thread what he meant by the title, and you still cling to your own interpretation of what he said. Being "happy" with something doesn't guarantee "high quality." For some reason, you think that it does.

 

[landtuna]

There's also the fact that the lead post in the thread includes a link to an article in the USA today, which includes this lead sentence (my emphasis added), "Most pay-TV customers who cut the cord are happy that they parted ways with their cable company."

That lead sentence linked in the launch post is as much a part of the launch post as anything typed by the launcher. So, it's clear that the thread is about two things. One, it is that "cutting the cord makes people happy" and two, it is about totally severing all ties to the cable company, not just dropping cable television but keeping broadband internet.

First, the title was quoted from the article. I did not write it. But it does go to prove the common use of "cut the cord". Secondly, "cutting the cord" was used in conjunction with "pay TV". No mention was made of internet cable and that goes to verify again that cutting the cord applies to cable TV use and not total elimination of cable with respect to internet access.

 

[SaltyDog]

On the other hand, anyone whose taste is so jaded that they can automatically classify any of the crap aired on network TV as "high-quality" would probably watch a test pattern just because it was on TV.

Really? ANY? You can't think of any network TV show as being worth watching? Some people might think such an opinion is snobby.

 

[Avid Listener]

Really? ANY? You can't think of any network TV show as being worth watching? Some people might think such an opinion is snobby.

I can think of several network TV shows that are worth watching. Some are high quality, some are mindless amusements to pass the time. I just don't think there is a large enough quantity of OTA network shows to make disconnecting from the cable networks something that would make any fan of television shows as a form of entertainment happy. That's why I challenged anyone to come up with 24 hours of high quality network programming. The best I could come up with was about 8 hours.

 

[SaltyDog]

I can think of several network TV shows that are worth watching. Some are high quality, some are mindless amusements to pass the time. I just don't think there is a large enough quantity of OTA network shows to make disconnecting from the cable networks something that would make any fan of television shows as a form of entertainment happy. That's why I challenged anyone to come up with 24 hours of high quality network programming. The best I could come up with was about 8 hours.

I am sure I watch less than 24 hours a week of network TV. As I said, I watch streaming TV too. I rented The Interview from Google Play on Saturday. I watched Falcons vs. Panthers yesterday. I watched 60 Minutes. I usually watch one of the Sunday Morning News Shows. I watch Shark Tank on Fridays. I don't always catch it but I like The Voice. I like Big Bang Theory. Antiques Road Show is good mindless entertainment when I'm in the mood. You Tube has some surprisingly good stuff. I watched a Henry Ford biography on Amazon Prime the other day. Maybe it doesn't meet some people's definition of "quality" but I don't really care what other people think. In fact, the most interesting thing to me about this thread is about how much some people think about and criticize what other people do.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I'm sure I watch less than 24 hours of TV a week, regardless of whether it's network, cable or via streaming. There's plenty of things I've seen a few episodes of and might be interested in if I was laid up at home, but in reality if I'm laid up at home I'll probably get out the collected works of Shakespeare before watching "Maury" or "Dancing with the Stars."

Just saying, finding 24 hours of "quality" network TV is an arbitrary goal.

 

[Avid Listener]

First, the title was quoted from the article. I did not write it.

You copied it UNDER YOUR OWN NAME. If you posted it, you own it.

Just saying, finding 24 hours of "quality" network TV is an arbitrary goal.

Well, Duh! It was an intellectual exercise.

 

[vchimpanzee]

It was a good, and somewhat novel, show when it began but it ran its course several years ago. I wouldn't have nominated any of the cast for awards myself.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. It probably isn't on the same level with the cable shows I don't watch, but I find it brilliant. Four Emmys for Jim Parsons, though, can't really be justified. The "Modern Family" cast never gets nominated for lead anything and Ty Burrell is just amazing at saying the stupidest things--well, part of that is great writing, but Phil Dunphy is so dumb.

Cryer carried that show from the beginning. Charlie Sheen was mostly the straight man. Unfortunately, it all went to hell after season 6.

Maybe. I still found Charlie quite funny and now that I've discovered "Anger Management", I'm enjoying his antics all over again so much. Probably nothing Emmy-worthy about that show.

 

[SaltyDog]

And today I learned that finally, ESPN and others will make their video content available to the public without requiring a Cable Television Contract, although a cord may be required.

"Las Vegas -- Fewer people -- and particularly fewer young people -- want to pay for cable or satellite TV service. So Dish Network, which has been gradually shedding subscribers, is trying something a little different to acquire new customers: It's launching Sling TV, a cheaper Over-the-Top (OTT) Internet-TV service, which starts at $20 and includes a slate of Disney and Turner Networks channels, among others.

The service is scheduled to be available in the coming weeks -- "

http://www.cnet.com/news/dish-launc...ith-channel-lineup-that-includes-espn-disney/

 

[ShawnHill1]

DirecTV is also launching a similar over-the-top service (Yaveo) in the coming weeks/months, but for Spanish-speaking viewers. It'll be a matter of time before they launch a version for English-speaking viewers to compete with Dish's version; in the recent agreement with Disney (and I imagine so for Fox as well), DirecTV is exploring that very option in the near future.

 

[PirateJohnny]

Free. Yeah. Sure it is.

How much does a good antenna cost, unless you're close to the towers? And even then ...

Oh, you can't install it yourself if it has to be on the roof. Well, maybe you can. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Okay, now it costs even more.

The "free" aspect refers to recurring monthly costs. Once the roof-top antenna is paid for, TV viewing is free. It's the same semantic idea as the meaning of "cord-cutting".

 

[PirateJohnny]

Earthlink is a reseller. They don't own the cord. They use either the phone company or cable company cord. Besides, how do you watch anything with only a DSL connection?

How do I watch? With my Blu-ray player and computer connected to a 55" TV (which is also connected to an antenna). Netflix and Hulu come in just fine.

 

[vchimpanzee]

The "free" aspect refers to recurring monthly costs. Once the roof-top antenna is paid for, TV viewing is free. It's the same semantic idea as the meaning of "cord-cutting".

Yeah. It's probably a big expense. And I didn't even mention lightning protection. But given the trees in my yard, I think that's also an obstacle and probably very expensive.

 

[Avid Listener]

How do I watch? With my Blu-ray player and computer connected to a 55" TV (which is also connected to an antenna). Netflix and Hulu come in just fine.

How do you watch The Walking Dead? Is it available on Netflix or Hulu?

 

[Robnoxious]

How do you watch The Walking Dead? Is it available on Netflix or Hulu?

I watch it live... illegally via streaming outlets.

Just as I watch every other cable broadcast.

With a simple plug-in I can zip zap it right to my tv for free without the need for Chromecast or an Amazon Fire Stick or Roku or **insert corporate logo here**

Since I'm on the Left Coast I also get the added benefit of time shifting and get the broadcast 3 hours earlier which is also very convenient.
Also, if Twitter starts blowing up giving out of potential spoilers I'm in the mix with 'em.
It's win-win.

Your kids are doing this too.

Cable has a battle to fight as the generation of tried and true "boob tube" watchers die off.

I would fully get on board with a legal platform that allowed me to watch their wares without hoop jumping or having to downgrade my computer's security in order to watch it. Hulu Plus hates the fact I use Adblock and NoScript plug-ins which keep the third party ads at a dull roar (more like non-existent) however, Hulu Plus demands I turn such things off which lowers my browser's security leaving me more susceptible to unacceptable malware. I have great intentions to give the advertisers their due but not at the expense of my computer's own security and safety. I feel I have that right. If sites like Hulu cannot adjust to those growing needs in a cyber world then I will just download illegally where the ads are all ready stripped leaving the producers with nothing from my watching their programs.

There comes a point where the legal and righteous option has more pitfalls that the pirate route. Distributors still don't get it yet. It's the record companies and Napster all over again.

 

[Avid Listener]

I watch it live... illegally via streaming outlets.

Arr matey, I was waiting for someone to raise the issue of piracy. I wonder how many others who are so proud to proclaim their status as "happy cable-cutters" are equally proud to acknowledge piracy.

 

[PirateJohnny]

How do you watch The Walking Dead? Is it available on Netflix or Hulu?

I don't watch that show. I don't have enough time to even watch the shows I want to watch that I do have access to.

 

[PirateJohnny]

Yeah. It's probably a big expense. And I didn't even mention lightning protection. But given the trees in my yard, I think that's also an obstacle and probably very expensive.

I have two rabbit ears that I was given from work when they put TV sets in the newsroom and connected them to cable. So the antenna as free. They're set up in my attic and I get all the local stations I want to. Free TV is really free in my case.

 

[BMR]

Yeah. It's probably a big expense. And I didn't even mention lightning protection. But given the trees in my yard, I think that's also an obstacle and probably very expensive.

In the UK it's less than a months subscription to a top cable package. I would imagine costs would be broadly similar over there. Obviously don't go on the roof unless you are 100% sure what you are doing- you could do an attic install yourself if that is adquate where you are?

As for the trees, it would depend where they are in relation to the transmitter, and how strong the signal is to begin with.