Quote:
Originally Posted by rebarnmom
No to both cable and satellite, as both options are too expensive, plus I don't want to pay for all of the channels I have no interest in. I would love an ala carte option where I could just pay for the Food Channel, Animal Planet (Discovery?), History Channel and HGTV, oh and the Sci-Fi Channel! If they ever went to such a plan, it would be my luck that the ala carte options would be more expensive and cheaper to get the all-inclusive junk option!
|
How would you know which channels were the ones you wanted to buy, if you didn't have them to sample? I always wonder that when people say they wish they could pick and choose the channels they get. I have TiVo, so I either watch the shows I'm interested in, or if "live" I look at
other channels to see what kinds of shows they have that might interest me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Russell
The results have not been what I expected!
I'm surprised we haven't seen a lot of people say that the time most people spend watching TV they spend reading (so the money for cable wouldn't be worth it).
|
I read when I can't watch TV. It is a big reason why I have an ebook reader -- so much more easier for all those places that I can't take my television!
I'm not sure how to answer the poll -- maybe other? -- since I have satellite more for the movies and network shows than for the cable shows.
I've watched TV over the internet, and it is fussy compared to just watching something on TV -- if I was going to fuss with it that much, I'd be better off renting the DVDs. I'm a time shifter -- have been since I got my first TV that I didn't share with my parents -- and I'm not tied to the networks' schedules to watch the shows I want to see.
My husband and I were talking about giving up our satellite because there are so many resources for shows, but in the end, we decided we use it enough to be worth the expense.