Streaming Experience

 We cut the cable at our house a year and a half ago. We had talked about it for months, and tried to look into streaming services and all the things associated with the new-ish tech involved; but like most things of a technical nature, the combination of obscurantist jargon and arcane pricing practices made it difficult to evaluate streaming with any confidence. Plus there was another inhibiting factor: I didn't find any commentary from ordinary non-techie users that described streaming as an experience, in comparison to cable. After a year and a half of streaming (and about 25 years of cable), I think maybe I can rectify that.

The immediate impetus that got us to change was cost. In mid-2022 we were paying about $250 a month for cable, internet and a landline, plus $100 a month for 4-G cellphone service. At that point, our cable bill had been going up steadily in drips and drabs for ... well, forever. By October, it was up to $282 a month, and I suddenly felt like Popeye. ("That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more.") We turned off the cable. We also changed our cellphone plan to a 5-G program because it offered free premium streaming services (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+). We had to buy new smartphones, $700 for a pair of Motorola phones loaded with Android; but they will last us for years and are worth every penny.

So our cable bill dropped from $280 to $95 a month, while our phone bill increased from $100 to $175, for a net savings of $110 a month. I felt good about that. (In the year and a half since then, those bills have crept up by about $30. I feel less good.) We also added one premium streaming service, Peacock Premium, for the Premier League soccer matches that are important to us; we got it for $5 a month and it immediately went up 20%, to $6. (On the other hand, we no longer get USA Network, a cable-only channel where many matches we want are shown.)

 To summarize the cost:

services based on cable TV: $380

services based on streaming TV: $300

So what's the streaming experience like? Well, first we had to have another router added, to get a strong enough signal in that room. That was frustrating but immaterial for present purposes. (It also cost us nothing.) Then we had to get a digital antenna to receive local broadcast channels that had been included with the cable package. It does not work well, but honestly, except for some programs on Public TV (which we can't get with the antenna we have) the content of broadcast TV isn't worth the added cost of a better antenna. 

 There are three aspects of use that I find significant: 

• recording shows; 
• finding shows to watch; and 
• actually watching. 

 When we had cable, we had a DVR that would record several programs at once. We used that all the time, and it seems to have made our TV watching easier and more enjoyable. If there's a way to record "live" streaming programs, I haven't found it, but with a few exceptions, we don't need to record them. Just about everything of interest to us is available on demand. Finding a program can be tricky, and once found it's not as convenient to watch, but we're not limited to what the DVR drive can hold. So that's pretty much a wash.

 Finding shows is generally much more difficult with streaming. Just by chance, we have a Samsung TV, and when, after 2 or 3 years of watching it, we attached it to the internet (with our privacy settings carefully chosen and re-checked from time to time) we discovered that it can access something like 500 channels of mostly drivel, but some of it is in our fields of interest, and we watch that crap most of the time. We have the Peacock Premium service, and the service in the Disney Bundle; there are also a number of free streaming apps -- Pluto, Plex, Tubi ... I can't remember all the names. They all contain various old TV series, free movies, and the same sort of crap that makes up most of your average 350-channel cable lineup. We occasionally will watch soccer matches on ESPN+, but after sampling what's on Disney+ for a couple of months, I don't think I've even opened that app in over a year. If you're a real Star Wars fan, or have small children, you'll probably feel differently about it, but to me it's pretty uninteresting. Hulu might be good if you could sort the wheat from the chaff quickly, but you can't.

 The problem with all these things is finding anything. If you don't already know where a program is, there's a "global search" function, but it doesn't work very well. Despite its name, it's not comprehensive; it seems to be intended to promote streaming services we don't have and don't want, like Apple TV and Netflix; and it's very hard to use, so generally we don't bother. 

 So we've settled in to our favourite channels, and hardly look at anything else. I flip through a dozen or so news channels* and channels devoted to a single long-running program: the Top Gear channel; the America's Test Kitchen channel; BBC Earth; Modern Marvels; and so on. These channels run the same programs over and over, but since the subject matter is of interest, I'm willing to check it out and maybe stick with it long enough to see how they make their jambalaya or get that roast to brown just right, or see why a ship sank or a bridge collapsed, or explore how scientists are learning that plants hear sounds. (Top Gear is an English skit-comedy show about cars, though it's very rarely funny. I like some of the cars, and the scenery.)

 Each streaming app has its own guide function. They're all a little bit different, but they all share two attributes. One, they're clunky to use, and two, they all give minimal but inaccurate descriptive information. If you already know what a show is, that doesn't matter; but if you're trying to decide if you might want to watch something you're not familiar with, the only way to know is to try it and see. In my case, the answer is almost always No, but the App will keep pushing the program to me anyway -- "Made you look!" -- and will recommend other crap of equal disinterest on the strength of my having sampled the first crap show.

 (In a similar vein, each app uses the buttons on my remote differently, so I end up having to start over a lot before I can settle in to watch a show.)

 The third aspect, actually watching TV, is one that makes me less and less satisfied with streaming as time goes by. With cable, I could change quickly from one channel to another. This, combined with digital video recording, made it possible for me to go months without actually watching a single commercial. When one came up on the channel I was watching, I'd use the two or three minute interval to surf around other channels I frequented, and since I was seldom really invested in a show, often I'd find something more interesting to me than what I'd been watching. It'd drive my wife crazy, though, so to keep peace I'd often just mute the TV and read until the commercials ended.

 You can't surf channels with streaming. Most of the apps prevent you skipping the commercials at all, so all I can do is leave the room or, more often, mute the TV and read emails on my phone. Luckily, many streaming channels count down how long is left before the programming returns. But if you're watching something on, say, Hulu and a commercial comes on, you can't switch to another app, you just have to sit through that time, watching as life ebbs away to no good purpose. 

 On my Samsung TV, I can switch channels. But whereas a new cable channel comes up after a minimal delay -- a second, two at the most -- streaming channels seem to take FOREVER to start up. Usually it's only in reality maybe 3 or 4 seconds, but too often it's longer, up to 15 or even 20 seconds. I don't usually wait that long, but switch to yet another channel and make my way back later on. Honestly, the content is so uncompelling that it doesn't really matter. (And switching to a channel accessed by the digital antenna is even more painfully slow; plus the picture quality is often abysmal.)

 And there are so many commercial breaks on streaming channels. They advertise "fewer commercials than cable," but if that's true it's because there's so much unsold commercial time allocated. (They also have relatively few different commercials, so you end up seeing the same damn thing over and over and over, no matter what channel you're watching.) You frequently end up staring at a screen with what amounts to a screen-saver on it, and it just goes on and on. You would think that the channels' bosses would recognise that by skipping the commercial breaks where there are no ads sold, they could build viewership. They would have to adjust the starting times for each program on the basically-worthless programming guide, but that's the job of a moment. But they'd rather just stick to their planned ad breaks, even thought they've nothing to show. I find it frustrating.

 The upshot is, I'm seriously thinking about going back to cable. Meanwhile, though, I'm watching a lot less TV overall.

TL,DR:

Streaming is no better than cable; cable is no better than streaming. It's all crap.

 * The news channels are particularly bad about commercial breaks. CNN's stream, for example, frequently cuts off mid-sentence and goes to a "we'll be right back" screen-saver, or changes in medias res from one report to the middle of another before the first is finished.

Cheerio! Pip Pip! And All That Sort of Rot!

 The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

starring Henry Cavill, Eiza Gonbzalez, Alan Ritchson, Henry Golding and Alex Pettyfer

directed by Guy Ritchie 

There are no surprises in this movie. All the Good Guys live; all the Bad Guys die. Heroes' shots never miss, while one wonders why villains even bother with guns. The mission is a success and Britain, as is widely known anyway, survives to conquer the Nazi menace with the somewhat important assistance of the US of A, arriving in the nick of time like the cavalry in a 50's western.

 

The point of this movie, if it needs one beyond mere entertainment, is to reinforce the traditional British self-image of devil-may-care aplomb in the face of danger: the Scarlet Pimpernel versus Napoleonic France, brought forward a century and a half or so. The Nazis are dominating Europe? I say! We shall need an impromptu team operating in complete secrecy; shall we say seven people? And I know just who we need. What's that? One is in enemy hands? Hmmm, deucedly awkward, eh what. Well, not a problem; we'll collect him on the way to our destination, and leave alive not a single one of the roughly 200 Germans guarding him. In fact, long as we're there, we may as well blow up the entire facility. Smashing idea, old chap; do, let's! Whisky?

 

The mission, we are told, was an actual one that took place just before the United States got involved in the war. (World War II, in case you haven't figured that out already.) Classified information about this event was released a few years ago, and a book was written (interestingly, two years before the declassification), rights were bought, and the messy business of making a movie chuddered into motion.

 

The film would have us believe that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was a neophyte in office, likely to be destroyed politically by obtuse machinations of defeatist Royal Navy types; actually the man had been a major political figure for decades, and Prime Minister for over a year, by the time the story took place. But then, feature films aren't usually where one goes for a lesson in reality, any more than a Trump rally. The story is the supremely important thing, and it must be entertaining: a ripping yarn. Maybe it'll be kind of like what really happened, but Jeez, don't go getting all Sheldon about it!  Anyway, this movie-version Winnie C orders an off-the-books operation à la Mission: Impossible; Churchill did love that show by all accounts, even before it existed.*

 

The Special Op is to take out a U-boat supply operation in Fernando Po, at that time a Spanish colony and thus technically neutral in the War. Naturally, the best person for the job -- really the only person -- happens to be incarcerated for insubordination. I'm not sure if Ritchie intends it as a parody or an homage, but either way, it's fun to watch. You can picture the scene, played for laughs, wherein this perfect special operative is enticed into taking on the task without the actual words being spoken. All veddy British, don't you know: A hopeless task, against insurmountable odds, and nothing at the end but certain death? Rather! Whisky, old boy?**

If you're going to see this movie expecting character development or intense drama, stay home and stream something. If you just want to be entertained (or if you wonder how the British see themselves), I recommend this movie. It is entertaining, and the plot, while a little convoluted, is fairly easy enough to follow. Ritchie is not sidetracked by P.C. concerns any more than he is with rigid historical accuracy, he just tells his feathery-light story with as much gusto as will fit on the screen. And by the way, even the night-time scenes can actually be seen clearly. I was grateful for that. 

My only other complaint is that the soundtrack was overly loud, relentless, and not at all inspired.

* In fact, it was stories about offbeat Allied derring-do in the War that gave rise to my own interest in the subject. Without Churchill's love of such intrigue, and his willingness to authorize it, I probably would never have bothered with this movie.

** c.f., Gimli in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: "Certainty of death? Small chance of success? What are we waiting for?"