Welcome to the Internet TV Forums.
    • Barriers to internet streaming TV and Movies: Poll Results

      As a cord cutter and a Roku early adopter, I haven’t quite been able to understand why so many people cling to pay TV options such as cable and satellite like a life raft.

      If you are a football fan, sure, I can see where that’s an issue. I am not a football fan, but I recognize that it’s nearly impossible to get NFL games without a pay TV service.

      But that’s not the reason for everyone. So I asked readers of my Roku blog, what keeps/kept them from streaming internet tv and here are the responses:


      *Note – readers were permitted to choose more than one option*

      67% - It’s pretty clear that cost of content is leading the pack, with bandwidth/data caps following at a considerable distance. This struck me as amusing actually, because I’m saving several hundred a year as a cord cutter – cost of content is negligible compared to pay TV packages. But I have so much to say about the cost comparison that it will be a whole separate article.

      25% - Bandwidth and data caps are definitely a huge barrier for a lot of people. It means cord cutters need to be more selective in what they watch. Some people go into the Netflix settings and change their streaming quality to minimize their data consumption. Others avoid watching in HD. Some cord cutters upgraded to higher tier packages with higher/no caps or even traded up to business class.





      20% - Not interested in available content – All I can do with this one is keep turning out info on what content is available on a Roku set top box. There’s more than most people think, and I will keep sharing it.

      9% - Hardware limitations – I already did a post on how to use your old TV with a Roku. Apparently Apple TV needs a more modern TV and HTPC to TV – well I can think of a way to do it but it’s complicated. Frankly if you are a user of older hardware, Roku is the way to go. You’re still going to need a decent internet speed though.

      6% - Service blocked by isp – this one is going to take some legal battles I suspect. Or at least a thousand voices crying out. Be the squeaky wheel, people. Tell your isp what you think of content blocking.

      2% - Cost of hardware - When I asked in more detail during in person interviews, it turned out that most of the people who mentioned cost of hardware as a barrier hadn’t actually researched the cost of hardware, but had instead just assumed it would be expensive. There are so many choices and most of them pay for themselves if you are cutting the cord at the same time. That's another one that requires its own post, and there are already posts on this very site with some of that information.

      2% - It must all be pirated content – it’s not the 90’s anymore. The big studios and networks are in on the streaming game and there’s so much legitimate streaming content that it’s impossible to list it all. Sure, there’s still pirated content and quasi legal torrents out there but it’s laughably easy to avoid the stuff that will get you in trouble.

      2% - Fear of the unknown – Well that’s not you is it? Because you are here, now, reading this. You WANT to know more about streaming tv. Welcome to the party!
      Comments 8 Comments
      1. Roku Guru's Avatar
        Roku Guru -
        Some of these are more "excuses" than reasons!
      1. dkreichen1968's Avatar
        dkreichen1968 -
        "It’s nearly impossible to get NFL games without a pay TV service."

        That's not true. Almost all local NFL games are available free over the air using an antenna with a digital television or analog television with a digital converter box (or a computer with a digital TV tuner). The picture quality of free over the air TV is actually better than that supplied by most pay-TV providers. On the other hand local MLB, NHL, and NBA games are generally pay-TV exclusives.
      1. catastrophegirl's Avatar
        catastrophegirl -
        Quote Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post
        "It’s nearly impossible to get NFL games without a pay TV service."

        That's not true. Almost all local NFL games are available free over the air using an antenna with a digital television or analog television with a digital converter box (or a computer with a digital TV tuner). The picture quality of free over the air TV is actually better than that supplied by most pay-TV providers. On the other hand local MLB, NHL, and NBA games are generally pay-TV exclusives.
        see, i told you i wasn't a football fan! are there local blackouts? i guess what i've been hearing is from people who don't have awareness of OTA games broadcasts
      1. Orrymain's Avatar
        Orrymain -
        I don't think they are excuses. It is how people feel, and their feelings should be respected, whether you agree with them or not. If you don't feel you can have quality reception, so to speak, or that it is still expensive to pay for all of these separate setups and such, then that is how you feel. Not everyone has hardware that works well with streaming. I found all of those reasons to be honest, even the ones who suspect it's pirated.
      1. dkreichen1968's Avatar
        dkreichen1968 -
        Quote Originally Posted by catastrophegirl View Post
        see, i told you i wasn't a football fan! are there local blackouts?
        Not in the way that I think your thinking about. If the statium isn't sold out, the game is blacked out on all local DMA TV services (OTA, cable and satellite) that is unless you can get a station OTA from outside the home DMA.

        Quote Originally Posted by catastrophegirl View Post
        I guess what i've been hearing is from people who don't have awareness of OTA games broadcasts
        There are lots of people who grew up with cable, who just don't understand the difference between broadcast and cable, and don't understand that broadcast TV is free (and now offers a better quality picture than cable). Was playing "Name Five" with a 24 year old. The card asked for 5 cable channels, and he said ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and The CW. I was like "wrong, not cable channels." He did recover with actual cable channels, but it shows that people often don't realize the difference. That's even more true with new multicast channels that look just like old school cable channels.
      1. avaloncourt's Avatar
        avaloncourt -
        Quote Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post
        There are lots of people who grew up with cable, who just don't understand the difference between broadcast and cable, and don't understand that broadcast TV is free (and now offers a better quality picture than cable).
        That is so true. People don't have any idea what the quality of OTA transmissions are like. They've been fed programming through a tube so long that: a) they're too young to remember needing to have an antenna for reception or b) don't want to deal with putting up an antenna again. Of course, many home owner associations don't allow any visible antennas at all.

        Many people think a cable picture is as good as it gets. They've been told 'it's digital' and that must be good while, at the same time, we see cable providers compressing their channels more and more to fit additional channels into the packages. People have come to think that soft images and macroblocking are normal.
      1. dkreichen1968's Avatar
        dkreichen1968 -
        Quote Originally Posted by avaloncourt View Post
        Of course, many home owner associations don't allow any visible antennas at all.
        In many cases those HOA rules are in violation of federal law: Installing Consumer-Owned Antennas and Satellite Dishes | FCC.gov

        Quote Originally Posted by avaloncourt View Post
        Many people think a cable picture is as good as it gets. They've been told 'it's digital' and that must be good while, at the same time, we see cable providers compressing their channels more and more to fit additional channels into the packages. People have come to think that soft images and macroblocking are normal.
        I spent two nights at a Holiday Inn Express in eastern Pennsylvania last month. I don't know who their TV service was, but it was terrible. Soft images and constant breakups on all the channels. I wouldn't pay two cents for that. My TV antenna system gives me 100% reliable service, 24 English language channels, the best quality HD on all the major networks, and no monthly bill. I've got less than $200 invested (antennas, mounts, and distribution amp). About 3 months cable bill paid for it.
      1. avaloncourt's Avatar
        avaloncourt -
        Quote Originally Posted by dkreichen1968 View Post
        In many cases those HOA rules are in violation of federal law: Installing Consumer-Owned Antennas and Satellite Dishes | FCC.gov
        I'm aware of that but, in most cases, the HOA's don't care. They pass their rules and most people don't want the legal battle. So, the HOA's win.

        I can say exactly the same thing for municipalities. Years ago I lived in a city about 40 miles from where I am now. The city adopted a 'no visible satellite dish' ordinance. At one of the public hearings before passing, I attended and told the city solicitor (lawyer) that this was in violation of federal rules. His response was that he didn't care and, unless I could provide him with documentation of a case won within the state of Pennsylvania, they would continue the process to pass the ordinance. That was in 1997, the year after the federal rules went into effect.