3 ms·

Maybe I'm odd but Jeopardy and local news without a TV would be worth $35.

atomicUpdate 10y ago
At $35/mo, after 1 year you'll have spent $420. You can get a decent sized TV and an antenna for less than that, and enjoy free news/Jeopardy for many years afterwards.
- jclardy 10y ago
  I think his point was being able to watch them without using a TV and antenna. I don't see why you would pay $35 a month though when you could get something like an HDHomerun and plug an antenna up to it. Or use an antenna, digital tuner and capture card and wire up your own solution. The only advantage I see of YTTV is ESPN, so for some people that is probably enough to justify it.
- untog 10y ago
  Everyone always talks about antenna, but it's not for everyone. Living in an apartment in NYC, I never, ever got decent coverage with an antenna.
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  They say "no need for a DVR" so I assume that you will get time-shifted content. That's not free. Also, watching 3 shows simultaneously (on devices I already own) is useful. And for those of us cord-cutters who have been missing live sports this is a nice option. [EDIT: 3 simultaneous streams, not 6]
- ryan-allen 10y ago
  Or a usb TV receiver for less than $100, watch it on ya 'pooter!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Groxx 10y ago
FWIW you can buy TV antennas / tuner cards for not-too-expensive (especially after comparing that monthly cost after a few months / a year). Though that is one more peripheral to carry around if you want to be mobile, so it's not exactly equivalent :)
mikelward 10y ago
That's exactly why I gave in and paid for basic cable. Which ends up costing $17.76 ($10 HD fee, $5 broadcast TV fee, $2.76 taxes and fees). For access to free content. I also bought a good indoor broadcast TV antenna. A winegard one, I think. And it normally works great, but it's only 90% reliable. I wouldn't pay the extra $17.24 for nothing, but I'd like to watch some sports too.

At $35/mo, after 1 year you'll have spent $420. You can get a decent sized TV and an antenna for less than that, and enjoy free news/Jeopardy for many years afterwards.

jclardy 10y ago
I think his point was being able to watch them without using a TV and antenna. I don't see why you would pay $35 a month though when you could get something like an HDHomerun and plug an antenna up to it. Or use an antenna, digital tuner and capture card and wire up your own solution. The only advantage I see of YTTV is ESPN, so for some people that is probably enough to justify it.
untog 10y ago
Everyone always talks about antenna, but it's not for everyone. Living in an apartment in NYC, I never, ever got decent coverage with an antenna.
chadgeidel 10y ago
They say "no need for a DVR" so I assume that you will get time-shifted content. That's not free. Also, watching 3 shows simultaneously (on devices I already own) is useful. And for those of us cord-cutters who have been missing live sports this is a nice option. [EDIT: 3 simultaneous streams, not 6]
ryan-allen 10y ago
Or a usb TV receiver for less than $100, watch it on ya 'pooter!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Groxx 10y ago

FWIW you can buy TV antennas / tuner cards for not-too-expensive (especially after comparing that monthly cost after a few months / a year). Though that is one more peripheral to carry around if you want to be mobile, so it's not exactly equivalent :)

mikelward 10y ago

That's exactly why I gave in and paid for basic cable. Which ends up costing $17.76 ($10 HD fee, $5 broadcast TV fee, $2.76 taxes and fees). For access to free content. I also bought a good indoor broadcast TV antenna. A winegard one, I think. And it normally works great, but it's only 90% reliable. I wouldn't pay the extra $17.24 for nothing, but I'd like to watch some sports too.