3 ms·

It's pretty shocking even if you are used to it. I can't believe people pay for cable given how terrible of an experience it is.

EADGBE 9y ago
Weird. It's always on when I click the button. I pay for cable to enjoy baseball games, primarily, as there is no other way to watch "in-market" otherwise. For certain demographics, it's just the most sense. I mean, TV is TV. If I spend a little bit more to never have to deal with buffering, or a laggy UI, it's worth it to me. I think a lot of non-cord-cutters would agree. Re: cord cutting; I've tried, I really have.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  I totally get the always on thing; especially for baseball. My point was more that ads are the driving force for me, and i am sure others, to abandon the platform; it feels a little like someone invading your home to yell at you if you're not used to it. But this applies to YouTube too; cable cutting is hardly a panacea to avoid intrusive ads.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    Personally, ads are easy enough for me to skip with a DVR (so long as you don't mind a lag between the live event and you watching it happen - avoiding results on the Internet isn't always easy) - but I don't even get the always-on thing. I had outages just as often as I do with Internet (actually more so), and I've had events not broadcasted when advertized. NBC Sports has been especially bad with this and F1 coverage - they outbid a motorsport-specific channel to get exclusive access to more niche events, and then those events get bumped to the bottom of the priority list in any scheduling conflict. So if you are DVR'ing it, you better check on it at least daily with other sources of information otherwise you're out of luck several times a season. Which wouldn't even be so bad if the only way to get NBC Sports and the other channels they move it to wasn't buying a 200 channel package and tripling my bill. So I just withdrew entirely.

EADGBE 9y ago

Weird. It's always on when I click the button. I pay for cable to enjoy baseball games, primarily, as there is no other way to watch "in-market" otherwise. For certain demographics, it's just the most sense. I mean, TV is TV. If I spend a little bit more to never have to deal with buffering, or a laggy UI, it's worth it to me. I think a lot of non-cord-cutters would agree. Re: cord cutting; I've tried, I really have.

throwaway91111 9y ago
I totally get the always on thing; especially for baseball. My point was more that ads are the driving force for me, and i am sure others, to abandon the platform; it feels a little like someone invading your home to yell at you if you're not used to it. But this applies to YouTube too; cable cutting is hardly a panacea to avoid intrusive ads.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Personally, ads are easy enough for me to skip with a DVR (so long as you don't mind a lag between the live event and you watching it happen - avoiding results on the Internet isn't always easy) - but I don't even get the always-on thing. I had outages just as often as I do with Internet (actually more so), and I've had events not broadcasted when advertized. NBC Sports has been especially bad with this and F1 coverage - they outbid a motorsport-specific channel to get exclusive access to more niche events, and then those events get bumped to the bottom of the priority list in any scheduling conflict. So if you are DVR'ing it, you better check on it at least daily with other sources of information otherwise you're out of luck several times a season. Which wouldn't even be so bad if the only way to get NBC Sports and the other channels they move it to wasn't buying a 200 channel package and tripling my bill. So I just withdrew entirely.