Cutting the cord on cable TV: Personal experience

Nielsen Ratings released their latest report on TV consumption in America, and found that 5 million people in the United States no longer subscribe to cable TV or broadcast TV, up from 2 million in 2007.  While this is an incredibly smaller percentage, I (and my family) are one of those.  In fact, I have several friends who have made this switch as well.

wsj.com

Does this say something about the Lawrence, Kansas market?  Quite possibly, because the only cable provider in town, Knology (previously Sunflower, and recently purchased by WOW) is a horrible service, expensive, and unreliable at best.  AT&T Uverse is possible in some locations of town, but not in mine.

The question here is how is my experiment proceeding, and how did I get to this?  From my recollection, we are going on close to five years without cable TV subscritpion.  Do not mistake this: we still get our entertainment, just not through the subscription cable TV offerings.  Six years ago I bought my first flat screen, hi-def TV: a 32 inch LCD.  We had basic, low-res cable at the time, however with this new device I went all in: HDMI cables with the full range of hi-def, digital cable TV and surround sound playing from a stereo receiver.  And it was good.

And yet, one year later, with a cable/internet bill that approached $150 per month, we decided to unload the cable TV, and $86 from our monthly bill.  I know some people who routinely pay over $200 per month for their combined service, so we were definitely in the middle when it came to packaged services.  And yet... we found that we rarely watched the television.  From my point of view, a family who works, kids in school, you calculate the number of visible hours for TV.  Five days a week, from 6:00pm to 10:00pm is 20 hours per week.  Weekends you would get 14 hours a day, so 28 hours a weekend.  That's 48 hours of total viewing ability per week.

When we looked at our viewing record, we really found that we only watched a handful of regular shows, and for the most part, simply turned on the TV for background noise, not really watching.  Of course there were the lazy moments when we would turn it on just to see if we could find something.  But we found a solution to that as well.  In our case, this was money wasted.  We did not watch 48 hours per week.  In reality, we probably watched about 10 to 15, with another 10 to 15 of just random surfing or background noise.

Here is the justification of why we switched off cable:  Since we already have an internet connection, there is no additional money spent.  Instead of the $86 per month, we can spend $8 for Netflix, $8 for Hulu Plus, and find the remaining things online for free.  That's a savings of $70 just in that.  When we really looked at it, there were only a handful of shows that we routinely watched, several of which we can find online.  The kicker is that we can watch them on our own schedule (it does not have to be Tuesdays at 8:00pm), and we can watch re-runs at our leisure.  That's not possible with cable TV (unless you spend extra for the DVR or OnDemand).  Plus there are several free online services out there as well: ESPN3 comes to mind for many events.  During the summer I subscribe to MLB.TV for baseball, and have considered FoxSoccer so I can watch the European football leagues.  Both combined still are less per month than the old cable bill.

This also leaves us the ability to rent a movie if we cannot find it on one of the two online services we currently have.  Plus, we can run these on the computer in the living room, on the PS3, on the iPad, or any of our laptops, sitting in any room or outside, or in a hotel, in a lobby... anywhere there is a network.  You cannot take your cable TV to Panera or Starbucks and catch up on an old episode of Faulty Towers... but I can on my laptop whenever I want.

So from our perspective, cutting the cable and finding alternatives saves us money, allows freedom, and also gives us the peace of mind that we do not need background noise (though we do turn on Netflix sometimes, and run Disney, or Discovery Channel shows like we used to with cable).

However, this is not for everyone.  My intent was not to indicate that I am a better person for doing this.  There are plenty of things that I miss, and I am certainly not one for sitting at the TV for hours and watching shows.  My attention span is not that great.  But if you need to save some money, and would untie yourself from the TV, this could be the way to go.  And when the day comes where cable companies allow complete a la carte programming, our family will probably supplement our internet with a few channels.  I still have issues with paying for 200 channels, when all I want is about 15.  I understand their arguments, but it does not work for me.  You want Disney? Fine.  But you will also get Disney Jr., MTV Hits, MTV Jams, Bloomberg, DIY, H2, G4, Military History, LifeTime Real Women, Biography, CMT Pure Country, Boomerang, Chiller, Cooking, Crime&Investigation, Discovery Fit&Health, GSN, Sleuth, Style, WE, VH1 Soul and VH1 Classics.  Yes, that's only $10 (at my local cable provider, but I am sure there are similar packages out there in your town) for 23 channels.  But this is such a random selection of channels... there are two channels in that group we would watch.  That is one-eleventh of the channels... I should only have to pay $0.90 for those two channels.

Now I have gotten off onto a tangent for another posting.  Anyway... the cable cutting has worked for us through supplementing things that we want to watch, saved us money, and given us flexibility that we could not find in cable TV.  I would be interested to know if you have cut the cord, how this has worked out for you, if you could not do it, or if you have questions on how you might do it.

US Soccer fan? Nope. I enjoy watching football

AFP - Manchester United - Chelsea. 10 March 2013

And depending on where you live, this is your first thought:

 (American): Of course, football is so much better than soccer.

(European): Of course, football is so much better than soccer.

I am talking about The Beautiful Game, not American Football, so all of the people who enjoy watching the American version of football will probably not enjoy reading this posting.

On to the subject:   ESPN ran a story the other day on their website, an opinion / conversation piece about Americans who support US Soccer (the US men's national team) but do not support or watch MLS (Major League Soccer).  The discussion is whether you can do this... support a national team, but not support the national league.  The sub title of this article was, "Can you call yourself a US soccer fan if your don't support MLS?"  I read the title incorrectly the first time and immediately thought, 'Yes, I am a US soccer fan, and I think the MLS is rubbish!'  However, the author is saying US as in the national team.  So with that.. no, I am not a US national team supporter (I am the worst American in the nation), and I do not support the MLS (even with one of the better teams in my area (KC), and growing up in Chicago).

How am I an American who does not support the national team, or the MLS?  Because I love football, and Americans play soccer.  You don't think there is a difference?  In my mind there are some very important facts to which anyone could debate, but consider the quality and setup of the MLS in comparison to the European leagues, and the quality and setup of the national team in comparison to the European teams.

From a league point of view, there are several European leagues which all play the same schedule, with the same off season.  They have the same transfer windows, which allow for the free movement of players between leagues.  The clubs play in huge competitions like Europa and Champions league, or for cups like the FA, which are huge interconnections between the best quality leagues and clubs.  England has several tiers of leagues, which adds a whole new element that would be deemed unconstitutional in America, with several lawsuits filed: teams can be relegated!  The worst teams in each league are sent down to a lower level, and the best teams below are brought up.  Residents of cities live and die with their relegation  which promotes a fan base that does not waver.  MLS does not have the huge cross-league tournaments like Europe does.  MLS does not have multiple tiers of leagues like Europe does.  Every club in Europe has a youth program, a U-21 team that plays against the same U-21 clubs that their senior team has.  There is no system like this in America.  Instead, MLS relies on college programs, random youth programs, and the cast-off aging stars from Europe and South America to fill their seats and make their money.  Look at the MLS list of European players: many were at one point fixtures on their national teams, but not since they came to the MLS.  Thus, the quality of play in the MLS is poor: no youth programs for Americans, no star power (you think Ronaldo or Messi would ever consider coming to the MLS in their prime?), no chance that bad teams are sent down, no big tournaments to decide 'Greatest Club on Earth.' It's soccer... but it is not beautiful.

And it carries over to the national team.  Once again I follow the European teams, and many of the same arguments hold true.  The majority of the US national team play in the MLS, which in turn makes the US national team simply the MLS all-star team, which plays at the MLS level.  Even when you add the stars who have gone to Europe and succeeded, when they are placed into a system of MLS players, and into MLS formations of play, they simply must revert to that style and tempo.  However, just like the major club tournaments of Europe, every four years there is a huge tournament which every nation there competes in.  Euro 2012 was as large a tournament as the World Cup.  The US plays for the CONCACAF Gold Cup. Not quite the same levels of quality in the two tournaments... and the US still does not play well in that.

Now that I have stated that MLS cannot compare to the European leagues, and the US national team cannot compare to the European national teams... how do you answer the question posted: can you be a US soccer fan and not support the MLS?  Americans will say 'yes,' because Americans are patriotic and love all things that are American.  When the World Cup starts (and the US somehow qualifies), people will turn on the games and root their loudest for the American team.  And the moment the Cup is over, they will turn away from soccer completely.  The MLS might pick up a few supporters due to the popularity of the Cup, but that's about it.  The hardcore football supporters and followers meet up on weekends, and watch the European games in full kit.

Some call us 'Euro Snobs.'  Some call us 'un-American.'  But in the same way I do not watch reality TV, because most of it is crap, I don't watch the MLS.  I am a football fan.  I appreciate the beautiful game played by those who make it beautiful.

I don't watch soccer.  I am a football fan.

Thoughts on the UEFA Champions League match: Man U and Real Madrid

[This originally appeared on my blog: Slim Thomas - http://slimthomas.blogspot.com/ ]

I make the standard disclosure: I am a Manchester United fan.  Very much similar to why the Chicago Cubs, or Atlanta Braves are so popular across America in baseball, Man U is and has been a regularly broadcast team on American sporting television networks.  In this, it has grown a large following of North American people, aside from the hardcore football fans who already had favourite teams.

With that I will say that I follow most of the European leagues, and will always sit down for a match on TV regardless of who is playing.  Hell, I will watch third-tier leagues, I love football that much.  For the most part I follow my favourite players, not teams specifically.  To give you insight on my non-bias, my favourite player is David Silva (Man City) and one of my favourite coaches is Roberto Mancini (Man City), so I am not strictly a United follower.

With that sorted, it has taken me a few days to reflect on the match that has been debated and argued over the past few days.  What was a match up of a finals proportion, ended with bitter disappointment for the home squad.  What I am referring to is the foul and subsequent dealing of a red card to Nani with roughly thirty minutes to play.  I will not go into all the details of how this one act changed the game, and thus the outcome of the series, rather on some of the incidentals.

Credit: PA Photos

First off, I did not agree with the official (yes, you all may say, 'Well, suprise, suprise! You are a Man U fan!').  Was it a foul?  Certainly.  The boots were high.  Was it intentional?  No.  The replay from every angle shows that Nani was playing the ball, his head turned towards the ball, his eyes on the ball.  At no point on the run up to that moment is Nani aware that Arbeloa is streaking toward that point on the pitch.  It almost (almost) appears that Arbeloa runs into Nani's boot, not that Nani sticks it to Arbeloa's chest.  I do not intend to say that Arbeloa was looking for a foul... this is simply a case where a high boot is run into, and the only issue is that the boot was high.  No intent from either player.  The Madrid players do not immediately start yelling at the ref for a foul, as players tend to do on plays such as this.  Quite simply, everyone was in shock at the ref pulling a red card from his pocket.

I sat at my computer at work while the game unfolded, reading the play-by-play online.  When those words came across the screen that Nani had been sent off, I stared in disbelief, mouth agape, wondering what horrible thing Nani, a usually mild-mannered player, had done.  It was not until hours later that I found a replay of the incident, and became angered.  Not that this one instance had changed the outcome of the game, but that a single person had ruined what could have gone down in history as a classic football match.

Here is where my analysis begins.  Mourinho (an extremely classy man, who handled this event brilliantly) pounced.  Up to that point, Man U verily controlled this game, and when they went a man down, Mourinho pulled the right cards, made the correct substitutions, and the players moved into the correct positions.  What I am happy about, is that they did not run up the score.  They did exactly enough to win.  I will say, that at even strength, Real would have scored at least once.  However, I think at even strength, Manchester would have scored once more as well, had both teams played the way the did before the send off.

Manchester played as well as they could with a man down.  And this is where I get upset.  Alexi Lalas, the international US player from long ago (1990's) sent out a message that good teams train and are prepared for red cards, and indicated that Manchester should have grouped together and known what to do.  I have respect for Alexi in that he was a decent player, in the way that American players can be considered 'good.'  However he has turned into a media mouth-piece, whereas he believes his experience playing (and managing?) allows him to make good opinions.  I am not going to debate his quality on the pitch, but the quality of his comment.  There is not a single club team in the world, less several national teams, that would have played well a man down against Real Madrid.  Manchester United played better with ten men than the US Men's National team from any year, would have played against Real Madrid.  While it is unexpected that you will lose a player during a game, I am certain that these professional footballers still knew how to play the game.  But as the saying goes, 'If you are a man down, then someone will be open...'  How often do teams scrimmage a man down?  Who do you remove from the pitch?  A forward?  A midfielder?  Which midfielder?  Do you run the scrimmage eleven times, removing a different person each time?  We all know (as Mr. Lalas should) that you prepare differently, in different formations, depending on the team you are playing.

I am certain that each of the ten remaining players knew where they needed to play, and how they needed to play.  They are professionals, having been playing their entire lives.  Hell, Mr. Giggs was playing in his 1,000 senior game.  I am sure that he has played in a fair number of those 1,000 with a man down, and knew how to respond.  To suggest as Mr. Lalas has that they should have regrouped and played better, is a ridiculous comment.

To which I will end mine.  The episode was an unfortunate event, and I think it was unfortunate that UEFA had to comment that the call was correct.  I understand that referees need to make judgments and decisions, sometimes in the heat of situations, in very little time, surrounded by many angry individuals.  But this was not the case in any sense of the word.  And considering the magnitude of the game and teams, caution should have been used.  In short: the ref made an incorrect call.

I think it would be safe to say that it will be unlikely that he will ref a game with either of these two teams in the future.  While UEFA said he will continue to ref, I just can't see him in a match with Man U or Real.