• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Happiness Is A Cut Cord

Avid Listener said:
Perhaps that simply proves you don't get around enough, or talk to enough people. Originally, "cutting the cord" meant CUTTING THE CORD. The "cord" being a tangible, physical device, also known as a "wire" or a "cable". The phrase meant to end any and all reliance on any sort of wire, cord, cable or other form of long, skinny conductor of electronic signals, and to instead rely only on antennas capturing signals from the air, without any sort of (are you ready?) CORD.

It is true that grammatically lazy people misuse the term to only refer to unsubscribing to conventional cable service and using a different mode of getting signals over the exact same cord. That only proves that many people are grammatically lazy.
Click to expand...

No, actually what it means in this era of wireless communication, is to disconnect TV delivered via cable or sat. Language is not static, particularly in America. Keep up with the times you grumpy old fart.
 
TheBigA said:
In my world, cutting the cord mean living without a wired phone. You'd be surprised how many people still pay to have POTS service in their house. It's not a growing business, and the major players want out, but millions of people still operate that way. I've been wireless only for over ten years. Just as Marconi once intended.
Click to expand...

Out here in the real world we call it a 'landline', not a 'wired phone'. And I still have one. It is dependable (where cell isn't) and the fidelity is great (where cell isn't) I can call all over North America (except Mexico) free of charge (OK, so can cell) and it costs peanuts per month so what the hell. It also serves as a spam caller filter so I can keep my cell free of clutter.
 
landtuna said:
No, actually what it means in this era of wireless communication, is to disconnect TV delivered via cable or sat. Language is not static, particularly in America. Keep up with the times you grumpy old fart.
Click to expand...

That's what I said. It means disconnecting from WIRES. ALL wires. All wires are "cords". If you still use a cord, then you haven't "cut the cord". You've just switched to a different cord.
 
Avid Listener said:
If one only considers quantity and ignore quality, then that statement is both correct and meaningful. But, if one includes quality as a consideration, then that statement is both true and utterly meaningless.
Click to expand...
Okay... I've judged the available audio and video content available to be of sufficient quality. Of course, everyone makes their own decisions. Well, critics decide for other people but those other people seldom pay any attention to them.
 
landtuna said:


No, actually what it means in this era of wireless communication, is to disconnect TV delivered via cable or sat.
Click to expand...

Surely TV delivered by satellite is just as 'wireless' as OTA?

Sure, both the transmitter and aerial look very different, but the link between the two is still wireless.
 
Avid Listener said:
That's what I said. It means disconnecting from WIRES. ALL wires. All wires are "cords". If you still use a cord, then you haven't "cut the cord". You've just switched to a different cord.
Click to expand...

Some people are just too ignorant to educate. I will quit trying. But before I leave.....take a glance through the Internet or your local bird cage carpet and see what the context is for the use of the phrase "cutting the cord". Perhaps there is still hope you can educate yourself, however unlikely.
 
BMR said:
Surely TV delivered by satellite is just as 'wireless' as OTA?
Click to expand...

Technically you are correct however the common description of TV delivered other than OTA is "cable" (sat is most often not mentioned probably due to the very small numbers).
 
This article in the Washington Post uses the term "cord cutting" as a way to describe the viewing of online video on a tablet or other personal device. (the connection between the title and it's meaning to this piece is buried in paragraph 3).

Obviously, "cord cutting" has now become shorthand to mean cutting all ties to a pay-TV service--at least in the eyes of the press. The WP article mentions nothing about watching TV with an antenna or anything related to terrestrial television.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-cutting-is-changing-the-kinds-of-tvs-we-buy/
 
Last edited:
landtuna said:


Some people are just too ignorant to educate. I will quit trying. But before I leave.....take a glance through the Internet or your local bird cage carpet and see what the context is for the use of the phrase "cutting the cord". Perhaps there is still hope you can educate yourself, however unlikely.
Click to expand...
Ha ha... yes... reading radiodiscussions dot com sometimes it appears that some of the contributors read nothing else. Anywhere else, the term "cord cutting" requires no explanation. It's not a literal explanation for what people do, it's a common expression. Also, I've read posts on this board that makes it apparent that some people here don't realize cable companies are losing customers.

Go to Google and type in "define:cord cutter". The answer is: cord cut·ter
noun informal
a person who cancels or forgoes a cable television subscription or landline phone connection in favor of an alternative Internet-based or wireless service.
"a popular way for cord cutters to view programming on their TV is with a streaming video box"
 
Last edited:
SaltyDog said:
Okay... I've judged the available audio and video content available to be of sufficient quality. Of course, everyone makes their own decisions. Well, critics decide for other people but those other people seldom pay any attention to them.
Click to expand...

If you think the content of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" is "sufficient quality", then your quality standards are too low to measure.
 
Avid Listener said:
If you think the content of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" is "sufficient quality", then your quality standards are too low to measure.
Click to expand...
Fantastic combination of a straw man argument (the false quote) and ad hominem (insulting my standards) in one short post. Nice!

I didn't say that of course, only that there is enough free TV of sufficient quality that I don't miss cable or satellite TV. I simply don't watch what I don't want to watch. I am willing to devote only a certain number of hours to watching TV.
 
Last edited:
SaltyDog said:
Fantastic combination of a straw man argument (the false quote) and ad hominem (insulting my standards) in one short post. Nice!

I didn't say that of course, only that there is enough free TV of sufficient quality that I don't miss cable or satellite TV. I simply don't watch what I don't want to watch. I am willing to devote only a certain number of hours to watching TV.
Click to expand...

I was responding to your response to my statement about the quality of content on television, by which I meant the subjective quality of the programming. I didn't think it necessary to note that I was referring to the quality of the content, since by now almost everything available in the way of content is of adequate technical quality. I cannot imagine why anyone would even make a reference to the technical quality of the signal. Therefore, I assumed your response that I responded to was about the quality of the content. I apologize for giving you credit for commenting on something significant, program content, instead of wasting bandwidth by talking about picture image quality.
 
Avid Listener said:
I was responding to your response to my statement about the quality of content on television, by which I meant the subjective quality of the programming. I didn't think it necessary to note that I was referring to the quality of the content, since by now almost everything available in the way of content is of adequate technical quality. I cannot imagine why anyone would even make a reference to the technical quality of the signal.
Click to expand...
Again, the criticism is aimed at something I never said. The word "technical" doesn't appear anywhere in my comments. We were both talking about the quality of the content, nothing technical. Let me state this another way: There is a lot of free programming available. I find some of it worth watching and some of it is not worth watching. Between free OTA TV and Netflix, there is more than enough quality programming to fill the time I am willing to devote to it. For that reason, I see no reason to subscribe to cable or satellite TV.
 
I'm one of the people who see the definition of cord cutting as total cutting of the cord for both TV and internet. I don't hate my cable system (I've actually been satisfied with Charter) but I'm being realistic in that in a lot of areas the only choice you have to get high speed internet from the same providers of cable TV, so it is still not a total cutting of the cord.

Like I said earlier I'm satisfied with Charter. My only other choices on TV are Dish (which I've had but was unhappy with) or DirecTV, and my only other choice for internet is DSL from the local excuse for a phone company in my area. So I don't see any reason for me to cut the cord for now, although I would eventually like to see ala carte come in. But that's a whole other discussion we've gone through on other threads.
 
Local TV stations should embrace cord-cutters and again try to remind everyone that they can get high-quality network programming in HD for free over the air.
 
tested said:
Local TV stations should embrace cord-cutters and again try to remind everyone that they can get high-quality network programming in HD for free over the air.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the networks have to start broadcasting "High-quality" programming for that to happen?
 
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.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom