I'm not much of a sports fan anymore, but I like the ability to watch random live stuff -- baseball, the NBA, college hoops, golf -- as I flip channels. At day's end, you need a traditional subscription to do this conveniently, effectively and economically.
We're not big on movies, but that's not an issue. If you're a buff, between Netflix and other options, you're good as gold.
So we're slaves to satellite for a few episodes a week of first-run television shows, spontaneous reruns, the NHL and access to random sports.
For that, we pay more than $65 a month, without second thought.
Between Netflix and Roku, we receive more value in a month than satellite provides all year, particularly minus the NHL.
Via Roku, we listen to
(P - Get Report)
. Each night I watch a recap from
of their best segments from the day (By day, I use
online). We use several apps to listen to live and recorded radio. And we access Amazon Instant Video (rarely) and Netflix (frequently) through the Roku player. We just subscribed to
When you add up what we get from Netflix, it's shocking that we can pay just eight bucks a month for it. Throw in Hulu and it's $16 a month. At that point, it's really sports that keeps you on cable or satellite.
Netflix for us the past two months: Two full seasons of
. Half a first season of
. Several episodes of
Parks & Recreation
. Dozens of documentaries on music, sports, politics, pop culture. I could keep going.
Netflix provides convenience at what ends up being pennies per month per show. Satellite's value proposition -- or lack thereof -- doesn't come close.
Plus, traditional television does not aid in discovery. As it matures, Netflix looks a bit more like Pandora. Granted, we're light television watchers, but, there's no way most of America can possibly keep track of the series, documentaries and movies in the Netflix catalog as they air. Netflix helps viewers discover or catch up on programming and drives them to new seasons of these shows.