How retarded is TV?

Unless you are a top end sports fan and love the premiership etc...I see no reason to spend 50 quid a month plus on TV...in fact I bet if the was a survey done you would find that the majority of viewing would be free to air channels.

I made a conscious decision recently to cut back on the stuff I don't need...I smashed my phone last week and was on the iPhone 6 train at 50 quid per month...saying to myself I must get one...I was hooked on the latest tech buzz...but my sister gave me her old phone as a temporary phone just in case I broke down in the car or motorbike etc... And tbh I haven't missed it...I can still go on fb with it and check emails...the only thing is the camera is crap...but I need to make more use of my Sony nex anyway so I will be taking this out more when I take the kids out etc...

The iPhone bug as been beaten!

The phone is a galaxy ace....yes I'm embarrassed getting it out in public :p but I don't feel deprived in anyway...I'm saving myself 50 quid per month...it may not sound a lot but it's a drag over 2years...

I have an a iPad for home use....

Having freesat at home has saved a fortune and no one in the house hold has missed sky...

I mean I can afford all these things....but are they that important? I just bought a gtx 970 and am having far more fun with that then watching TV...I mean does it really float people's boats watching fat Alison on strictly on a Saturday night? Or the xfactor? Having them free is bad enough but paying for them is just retarded in my opinion.
 
Gave up on regular TV a long time ago. 99% rubbish. There is some absolutely amazing stuff out there...and I stream it on demand. Having "broadcast" TV is like having a pipe of raw sewage flowing into your living room.
 
There's a great video on YouTube commenting on discovery channel's shark week. It describes the early years as informative and genuinely interesting programmes before recently descending into the typical 'witchhunt' programs of today. Discovery channel had completely made up facts and based whole programmes on the lies! Even had an actor describing himself as a marine biologist. But depressing really..
 
Netflix, or both.
There's no contract, so you only waste a month if you don't like it which is like £6.
Also change dns server and get Netflix in lots of different regions and use www.moreflicks.com to find out which region a film is on.
 
I get by fine with Netflix & Amazon instant video (which I have prime for anyway).

I don't even have a TV licence & frankly I'm glad I don't need one.
 
Regarding Netflix, Lovefilm and Amazon, what are they? My understanding is that you can watch absolutely every programme in the history of TV on demand via streaming video for £xx per month? Do you need a TV license for this type of service?

Is TV-on-demand (iPlayer, 4oD etc) similar except that they're channel-specific and only have 1 week's worth of programmes?

Sorry if these questions come across as dumb, but I went to uni in 1998 without a telly and just got used to not having one. To me, TV was 5 channels, not 100+, and certainly no satellite or cable. The other thing nowadays is that every TV set seems to have 4 remotes?!
 
Well the essence is right but they are far from 'every programme in the history of TV'. They have a lot but not everything, sometimes even missing quite high profile stuff. They're often quite changeable too, a recent high profile example being South Park which was on Netflix but then vanished (still on US Netflix though).

You don't need a TV License for these services.

You also don't need one for services like iPlayer or 4OD and you are correct in that these are channel specific and carry a shorter history - they're catch up services rather than on demand streaming services if you see what i mean (even though technically they are on demand streaming services :p)

Some (such as iPlayer) will also allow viewing of live TV online but this does require a license.
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
Regarding Netflix, Lovefilm and Amazon, what are they? My understanding is that you can watch absolutely every programme in the history of TV on demand via streaming video for £xx per month? Do you need a TV license for this type of service?
Click to expand...

This is as far from the truth as you can get :p Let's talk films.

Most recent films (within the last 5-10 years, say) will be PPV. Then there will be other recent films that were available for 6 months and then expired. After that you can't get them anywhere except on disc.

And whilst one film might be available on Netflix, another might be on Amazon, or Blinkbox, or... In general, the streaming services have a very, very limited selection. Most of the titles you won't ever have heard of.

If you want to watch everything, you'll be spending a fortune. PPV movies in particular aren't cheap. £3.49 for SD and a whopping £4.49 for HD.
 
gothic_hobbit said:
You can buy movies brand new on bluray for not much more.

And the quality can't be beat.

Plus you get extras (most of the time).
Click to expand...

This is true, but it's also stupid, and is everything that's wrong with the current system.

The vast majority of films I only ever watch once. 50% will turn out to be complete junk (I'm not good at telling which ones will be turkeys :p).

I also don't want to collect blu rays or DVDs. Nor do I want to buy a movie and then have the hassle of selling it on eBay after I've watched it (once).
 
Heh, when I thought it couldn't get worse, it does :p Fresh from their "success" with "Pond Stars", there's another reality TV show about making water features. Nat Geo brings you... "The Pool Master".

I have to end this, and soon :p

I've broached the subject of ditching Sky and everybody else wants to keep it :/ Seems I'm the only one here who thinks it's trash. Loss of recording is a big stumbling block. Sky aren't stupid when they require an active sub to use recording features.

Last time I looked (half-heartedly), the outlay for a FreeSat PVR was about £200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom