Article: Is cable(and satellite) doomed?

[CrankyYankee]

Well...not right away. But in the forseeable future? With programming choices from more and more
websites(legal and otherwise), should cable and satellite be worrying? The link to the article:
http://consumerist.com/2012/08/cabl...who-have-no-plans-for-ever-getting-cable.html

 

[K6JHU]

Unless you are going to go OTA or satellite any of the TV options listed require a high speed Internet connection. In many places that high speed connection is your cable company. So they have you anyway. Pay for the TV channels or pay for the high speed connection.

 

[anotherguyTN]

On Charter in Jackson, TN if you get internet but no cable TV you have to pay extra, and I'd guess that's pretty common, so they get you either way.

 

[dave73]

On Charter in Jackson, TN if you get internet but no cable TV you have to pay extra, and I'd guess that's pretty common, so they get you either way.

That's how it is with Comcast & Time Warner as well. With Mediacom in Starke County, IN, they will not let you have internet unless you also subscribe to cable. DSL is limited in that county from Centurylink. So for those who live away from the central office are screwed.

 

[CrankyYankee]

I checked with Comcast here in Vermont recently and they offer internet alone, internet with cable TV and(I didn't know this) phone service without having to buy internet too. Methinks the internet is surpassing cable TV as a "gotta have" service.

 

[Bengalsfan]

You guys are really short sighted. Do you honestly think that the wireless companies are not working to increase their speeds? I mean, I have radio stations using Verizon wireless to do their football/basketball remotes. I can watch Netflix on my Driod. As the cellular infastructure keeps growing, we'll get to a point where we don't need cable or DSL for internet.

As far as programming, I'm subscribed to MLB.TV and can watch those games on my Roku streamer. Who's to say other current cable TV channels can't follow the lead of baseball? Instead of having to get DirecTV for NFL Sunday Ticket, you subscribe to it through the NFL website. You want ESPN? Subscribe to them at ESPN.com and watch all the ESPN channels it on the streamer. You want to watch the Viacom channels? Subscribe to them for $5 a month.

There's a revolution coming. It seems the only ones who don't know about it are the current players.

 

[Markxxx]

You guys are really short sighted. Do you honestly think that the wireless companies are not working to increase their speeds?

Exactly WIRELESS and there is just so much spectrum and that is it. The future of high speed Internet must be in wire.

Mobile phones were initially a businessperson's luxury. Then prices dropped remarkably in the late '90s and more people began seeing them as affordable add-ons. And once reception and rates dropped to reasonable levels, folks began cutting their landline cords.

If you read the article they base it on that quote.

The problem is there were many companies at first. Now we're limited to two or three in an area with good coverage.

Without competition the rates won't fall, unless regulated.

If you ran a fiber cable in a city and let anyone use it who wanted to provide Internet, phone or TV the prices would tank. Because of free market competition.

Remember the key is FREE MARKET.

People confuse this. For instance, TV and radio are not free markets. A free market is when anyone with enough capital can join in. TV and radio are limited by spectrum. So they are not free markets. Most cities award cable franchises which limit competition.

We are rapidly going back to the days of pay as you go. Remember AOL when it first came out and you paid for every minute you were online. And does anyone recall when you downloaded webpages to "read offline" so not to waste your minutes.

I still get people asking me "What does 'work offline' mean?"

Who needs Google's super fast Internet if you are capped. Yeah you can max out your month in two hours. (Note: Google has not set caps, as of yet, at least).

Very few services will be doomed. Yes, the telegraph is dead, the OTA subscription TV model is dead, but there the exception. Usually the industry finds a way to adapt. Railroads now work WITH trucking companies. Radio moved from scripted programs to music. Then AM moved from music to news/talk/sports.

Go to any 40s newspaper and you read the "death of radio." Then it was the "death of AM." No it wasn't. Because radio adapted.

You may not like the way it adapted but it survived.

 

[K6JHU]

From Bengalsfan ... "You guys are really short sighted. Do you honestly think that the wireless companies are not working to increase their speeds?"

There is no way in h*** that a wireless phone carrier is going to be able to come up with enough bandwidth to stram an HD picture to a big screen TV with anythng close to reasonable quality.

If you look at the frequency allocation tables and divide it up in to 6 MHz chunks, there is not a lot of channel space to go around.

 

[Darth_vader]

Re: Article: Are cable and satellite doomed?

Is *pay* satellite TV doomed? Yeah.

Is *satellite TV* doomed? Hell no.

Think about it.

 

[mescutia]

You guys are really short sighted. Do you honestly think that the wireless companies are not working to increase their speeds? I mean, I have radio stations using Verizon wireless to do their football/basketball remotes. I can watch Netflix on my Driod. As the cellular infastructure keeps growing, we'll get to a point where we don't need cable or DSL for internet.

Your cell phone must get really, really good reception when you're at home.

Mine doesn't. In fact, the reception is so poor that, when I do receive a call on it when I'm at home, my instinct is to not move lest I lose the connection. There are no cell towers close enough for me to receive a reliable connection because people in my town think that cell towers will cause their property values to plummet. I have to continue having a landline phone just so I can make and receive calls, so I'm paying $65/month for two phones, which is ridiculous.

So the thought of getting high-speed internet fast enough to watch streaming high-definition video is, to me, laughable.

 

[mescutia]

On Charter in Jackson, TN if you get internet but no cable TV you have to pay extra, and I'd guess that's pretty common, so they get you either way.

That's how it is with Comcast & Time Warner as well. With Mediacom in Starke County, IN, they will not let you have internet unless you also subscribe to cable. DSL is limited in that county from Centurylink. So for those who live away from the central office are screwed.

I would think there's be an easy solution to that: "Okay, what's the cheapest, most bare-bones, local-channels-and-a-small-smattering-of-basic-channels-only package available? I'll take that."

 

[K6JHU]

I get 5 bars on my cell phone (I can see the tower out the window) but my measured data rate is 36 kBPS. That is not Meg, that is kilo. That is slower than dial-up. Forget streaming anything here on the cell phone.

But I do have high speed Inernet via the cable. And I do have a landline via the cable and VOIP. A lot less than $65 a month ($21 for the two lines but who is counting). You might consider VOIP.

 

[Darth_vader]

Uhhh.....36K isn't "slower than dial-up" access; that *is* dial-up access for a lot of people, including myself (my dinosaur modem on the "base" end doesn't support anything above 36.6K. No, not 56K; I do know the difference--36.6K.)

It is possible (with varying degrees of success) to stream certain things within such constraints, but I certainly wouldn't try streaming video through it, high-definition or otherwise!

 

[Bengalsfan]

From Bengalsfan ... "You guys are really short sighted. Do you honestly think that the wireless companies are not working to increase their speeds?"

There is no way in h*** that a wireless phone carrier is going to be able to come up with enough bandwidth to stram an HD picture to a big screen TV with anythng close to reasonable quality.

If you look at the frequency allocation tables and divide it up in to 6 MHz chunks, there is not a lot of channel space to go around.

That's right. What was I thinking. Nobody will ever develop a way to get around those obstacles...If we all had that attitude, we'd still be watching black and white TV on a 6" round screen. Keep the pessimistic attitude up, technology just stops right here, right?

 

[Bengalsfan]

So the thought of getting high-speed internet fast enough to watch streaming high-definition video is, to me, laughable.

So was the thought of high speed internet....at one time.

Like I said, there's a revolution coming on the way we get our entertainment. I see by the responses in here, most folks can't see it.

 

[landtuna]

Like I said, there's a revolution coming on the way we get our entertainment. I see by the responses in here, most folks can't see it.

There will have to be much more robust capacity and something to replace TCP/IP before mass broadcasting over the Net is doable. I've seen very few connections to date that can produce the PQ of an OTA or even cable broadcast and I have yet to watch anything over 15-20 minutes that doesn't freeze, drop frames, pixelate or just die altogether. OTA digital TV set a new low in broadcasting but the Internet isn't anywhere near that good yet.

Saying the Internet will replace broadcast TV in the future is like saying the Earth will end someday.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

You guys are really short sighted. Do you honestly think that the wireless companies are not working to increase their speeds? I mean, I have radio stations using Verizon wireless to do their football/basketball remotes. I can watch Netflix on my Driod. As the cellular infastructure keeps growing, we'll get to a point where we don't need cable or DSL for internet.

As far as programming, I'm subscribed to MLB.TV and can watch those games on my Roku streamer. Who's to say other current cable TV channels can't follow the lead of baseball? Instead of having to get DirecTV for NFL Sunday Ticket, you subscribe to it through the NFL website. You want ESPN? Subscribe to them at ESPN.com and watch all the ESPN channels it on the streamer. You want to watch the Viacom channels? Subscribe to them for $5 a month.

There's a revolution coming. It seems the only ones who don't know about it are the current players.

NFL Sunday ticket is available on PS3 consoles

 

[KeithE4]

You guys are really short sighted. Do you honestly think that the wireless companies are not working to increase their speeds? I mean, I have radio stations using Verizon wireless to do their football/basketball remotes. I can watch Netflix on my Driod. As the cellular infastructure keeps growing, we'll get to a point where we don't need cable or DSL for internet.

Yes we will. Competition is a good thing, plus the phone companies aren't really set up for general internet access. I can connect my PC to my smartphone and use it, but Verizon wants another $40 a month for that "privilege."

As far as programming, I'm subscribed to MLB.TV and can watch those games on my Roku streamer. Who's to say other current cable TV channels can't follow the lead of baseball? Instead of having to get DirecTV for NFL Sunday Ticket, you subscribe to it through the NFL website. You want ESPN? Subscribe to them at ESPN.com and watch all the ESPN channels it on the streamer. You want to watch the Viacom channels? Subscribe to them for $5 a month.

The Mickey Mouse Outfit doesn't allow ESPN3 online access via many smaller cable companies and internet providers - including many of the phone companies (Century Link/ex-Qwest being one). They want too much money.

College sports aren't available for the most part without paying CBS big bucks for ULive, and then it's mostly audio feeds and coaches' shows. MLB, the NBA, and the NHL get it for the most part (all are on Roku, but the local blackouts must end), and the NFL is starting to come around. But the NCAA seems to have little interest in internet broadcasting without price gouging, the men's basketball tournament being the exception. $120 a year is too much for such limited content.

As for news, my Roku box does carry Fox News Channel, but only 6 hours a day. MSNBC and CNN's domestic service are not available, although CNN International and the British version of CNN are. Everything else is podcasts. For those who like watching paint dry, C-SPAN is not available via Roku, but is available via their website.

There's a revolution coming. It seems the only ones who don't know about it are the current players.

It's slowly happening, but too many content providers, especially those who program sports, have a ve$ted intere$t in keeping themselves only on cable and satellite - at close to $5 per subscriber whether those channels are watched or not. An online-subscription model wouldn't make up for the lost revenue from folks canceling cable.

 

[KeithE4]

Another article on cutting the cord from Yahoo.

 

[landtuna]

I can watch Netflix on my Driod.

The question is....why would you want to? I bought a big HDTV so I could watch movies and sports as they were meant to be watched. I could have watched them on my little circa 1975 13" B&W TV but why would I? Watching anything on a mobile phone is just dumb....unless you have no other choice.

Another consideration is, of course, not everyone carries a mobile phone. And not everyone who has a mobile phone has a smartphone.

As the cellular infastructure keeps growing, we'll get to a point where we don't need cable or DSL for internet.

Given the questionable reliability and cost of video over mobile phone I really doubt there is any short-term threat to coax, light pipe or twisty pair. No matter what the technology a wired connection will always be more secure and faster than an over-the-air technology.