Cable TV: The Beginning Of The End?

[DToTheJ]

Dreamworks has signed a deal with Netflix for streaming its films, as opposed to a traditional deal with HBO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/netflix-secures-streaming-deal-with-dreamworks.html

So Netflix is claiming brick-and-mortar video stores as a victim. Is cable far behind?

 

[gregg75]

I thought those video stores were mostly gone already.

I think cable is slowly moving over to the internet/online. Cables on
a pole is so 1974 now.

 

[anotherguyTN]

But in most places you still need cable to get high speed internet.

 

[justpassingthough]

I thought those video stores were mostly gone already.

I think cable is slowly moving over to the internet/online. Cables on
a pole is so 1974 now.

Cable TV as its traditionally known is probably on its slow decent towards obscurity, as more and more people are streaming their content. However, a large percentage of Americans still receive their internet at home from the "cable" company, via fiber optic and/or coaxial cable, so the idea of "cable" companies disappearing isn't happening any time soon. The airwaves are not infinite- so as long as "cable" companies have the most direct broadband pipeline into Americans home, they stand to be a major player for quite some time.

Many of these companies invested billions in infrastructure to provide these services. If anything, I imagine they will start removing channels from traditional cable to increase potential bandwidth for internet as streaming becomes the norm.

 

[KML0224]

Analog channel line-ups are already biting the dust in many places.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Analog channel line-ups are already biting the dust in many places.

They would have already bitten the dust if the cable companies had their way.
The FCC mandated that they keep a few analog stations around for Grandma for
at least a few more years.

 

[landtuna]

I probably won't be around to see it but I'll bet within the next several decades OTA TV will be a thing of the past and all TV services will be provided through cable and/or sat.

Cable isn't going away but its uses may change.

 

[vchimpanzee]

However, a large percentage of Americans still receive their internet at home from the "cable" company

Where I live the phone company can do it to. They upgraded the phone lines.

Now I have the slowest Internet that isn't dial-up, but it's plenty fast even for this site and it's actually cheaper than dial-up as I get unlimited use of it, while for the same price you can have 15 hours a month for dial-up. Why would anyone do that?

 

[landtuna]

However, a large percentage of Americans still receive their internet at home from the "cable" company

Where I live the phone company can do it to. They upgraded the phone lines.

Now I have the slowest Internet that isn't dial-up, but it's plenty fast even for this site and it's actually cheaper than dial-up as I get unlimited use of it, while for the same price you can have 15 hours a month for dial-up. Why would anyone do that?

I'm assuming you mean some version of DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) from one of the phone companies.

I'm also a satisfied DSL user but had to wait two years for the phone company to upgrade their underground wiring before it was broadband-ready. Because there are distance limitations on DSL it won't work for rural areas so their connectivity to the Internet will still depend upon coax.

Where I live the DSL service is fiber to the distribution box located approximately one-half mile from my house. Then it takes the twisty-pair the remainder of the way. It has been much more reliable than the local cable provider and is cheaper as well. And because it sits on your phone line there is no sharing as is done with cable so the dreaded "rush hour" doesn't happen on DSL.

 

[KeithE4]

I probably won't be around to see it but I'll bet within the next several decades OTA TV will be a thing of the past and all TV services will be provided through cable and/or sat.

In the short-to-medium term, I don't think OTA TV will be completely gone, but we'll be back to 2-7 stations per market, like in the '60s. But the Big Four networks will have long switched to online delivery, and they'll be independents/brokered, religious stations, or non-Spanish ethnic broadcasters. In other words, just like AM radio.

Cable isn't going away but its uses may change.

The cable companies will be like the phone companies - they'll provide a connection to the interwebs and do little else.

 

[vchimpanzee]

However, a large percentage of Americans still receive their internet at home from the "cable" company

Where I live the phone company can do it to. They upgraded the phone lines.

Now I have the slowest Internet that isn't dial-up, but it's plenty fast even for this site and it's actually cheaper than dial-up as I get unlimited use of it, while for the same price you can have 15 hours a month for dial-up. Why would anyone do that?

I'm assuming you mean some version of DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) from one of the phone companies.

I'm also a satisfied DSL user but had to wait two years for the phone company to upgrade their underground wiring before it was broadband-ready. Because there are distance limitations on DSL it won't work for rural areas so their connectivity to the Internet will still depend upon coax.

Where I live the DSL service is fiber to the distribution box located approximately one-half mile from my house. Then it takes the twisty-pair the remainder of the way. It has been much more reliable than the local cable provider and is cheaper as well. And because it sits on your phone line there is no sharing as is done with cable so the dreaded "rush hour" doesn't happen on DSL.

They did tell me I was too far away for their highest spped, though I couldn't really pay that much. I just avoid going to sites that will require a lot of speed. I also avoid pretty much everything to keep viruses and malware out.

 

[landtuna]

In the short-to-medium term, I don't think OTA TV will be completely gone, but we'll be back to 2-7 stations per market, like in the '60s.

I'm curious you say this. Are the new infomercial/spamcaster/godcaster stations not viable?

But the Big Four networks will have long switched to online delivery, and they'll be independents/brokered, religious stations, or non-Spanish ethnic broadcasters. In other words, just like AM radio.

IMHO, It will be a long time before the Internet (as currently engineered) can handle flawless delivery of HD-quality TV programming. It will be even longer before the general public has the equipment and connections to receive it (and that is presuming it can be provided at a reasonable price point). I really doubt people will want to watch network shows on their PC's so some sort of inexpensive simple interface will need wide acceptance. It makes much more sense to use existing cable plant to replace OTA broadcasting.

One more thing.....wait until some hacker disables network broadcast over the 'net and see what the reaction is.

The cable companies will be like the phone companies - they'll provide a connection to the interwebs and do little else.

That's about all they do today, isn't it?

 

[vchimpanzee]

I really doubt people will want to watch network shows on their PC's

I've heard there's a way to send the programming you get online to your regular TV.

Still, I don't enjoy watching online. I've done it. Internet with a high enough speed would be too expensive for me to do it at home. Plus I like to avoid most sites to avoid the chance of viruses and other problems.

 

[KeithE4]

In the short-to-medium term, I don't think OTA TV will be completely gone, but we'll be back to 2-7 stations per market, like in the '60s.

I'm curious you say this. Are the new infomercial/spamcaster/godcaster stations not viable?

Not in the long term, but I think they'll stick around as long as there are some viewers to watch them and some scam-artists infomercial makers to pay for them. By the time today's babies are in college, the concept of "TV" as we know it today will be just about gone. But until then, there will be room for some OTA stations after the networks switch to online. The cable companies will still deliver the content. DirecTV and Dish Network may be in trouble.

But the Big Four networks will have long switched to online delivery, and they'll be independents/brokered, religious stations, or non-Spanish ethnic broadcasters. In other words, just like AM radio.

IMHO, It will be a long time before the Internet (as currently engineered) can handle flawless delivery of HD-quality TV programming.

Not a very long time, but it'll be several more years before the interwebs' infrastructure can handle tens of millions of HD video streams simultaneously.

Hulu and MLB.TV say they have "HD" but they really don't. Frame rates are still in the 10-20 per second range, and the resolution varies between 720p at best down to even 240p when traffic is up. The cure for this is still years off.

It will be even longer before the general public has the equipment and connections to receive it (and that is presuming it can be provided at a reasonable price point).

Roku boxes are $70-100. Any decent PC made in the last 5 years can be configured to make a multimedia server (I have a Roku on one TV and a PC on the other). It's the connections themselves that have to be beefed up to take full advantage, though.

I really doubt people will want to watch network shows on their PC's so some sort of inexpensive simple interface will need wide acceptance. It makes much more sense to use existing cable plant to replace OTA broadcasting.

The way "channels" are selected on Roku, Hulu, and Netflix (I think - I don't use it) is still a pain. But with hundreds to thousands of choices, it's the best way we have right now. Hopefully some genius will come up with something better.

One more thing.....wait until some hacker disables network broadcast over the 'net and see what the reaction is.

I'm not worried about that. Such malicious activity could happen today, and it hasn't AFAIK.

The cable companies will be like the phone companies - they'll provide a connection to the interwebs and do little else.

That's about all they do today, isn't it?

Yes, but that's not the business goal of some companies. But with all the talk about "net neutrality" and some cable companies wanting to control content (for example, blocking Netflix if Comcast provides its own similar service), I just can't see it happening. The market (and possibly the courts) won't allow it.

 

[landtuna]

DirecTV and Dish Network may be in trouble.

There are a significant number of people who don't live where cable exists...and never will. I suspect one sat service might disappear but one will likely survive if only to feed those rural folks.

Not a very long time, but it'll be several more years before the interwebs' infrastructure can handle tens of millions of HD video streams simultaneously.

Hulu and MLB.TV say they have "HD" but they really don't. Frame rates are still in the 10-20 per second range, and the resolution varies between 720p at best down to even 240p when traffic is up. The cure for this is still years off.

I'm guessing we will need at least the Internet 2.0 before true HD is viable and perhaps longer still for it to be deployed nationwide. This seems to me to be the killer that needs to be overcome.

Roku boxes are $70-100. Any decent PC made in the last 5 years can be configured to make a multimedia server (I have a Roku on one TV and a PC on the other). It's the connections themselves that have to be beefed up to take full advantage, though.

Modern PC's come equipped with an HDMI port so connection to a digital TV is possible but....how many people want their PC (and I am assuming a laptop) connected to their TV every time they want to watch a program? And what if you have multiple viewers and multiple TV's in the house? And it goes without saying that having a desktop PC co-located next to the big screen TV is not a very viable setup for most families. And I haven't even touched on how one would train their "better half" to use the PC for tuning in "The Good Wife". ;D

I'm not worried about that [hackers]. Such malicious activity could happen today, and it hasn't AFAIK.

It hasn't yet only because there is no online "broadcasting" over the Internet that is attractive enough to draw the hackers attention. If we assume the Big Four wind up online there becomes a very big target(s) for someone to raise hell with the signal and/or availability. Today we have virtually no need for any sort of customer service function OTA but what happens when the network goes dark over the 'net? I'm guessing pitchforks and torches in the streets (and on Madison Ave.)

 

[ercjncpr]

Analog channel line-ups are already biting the dust in many places.

They would have already bitten the dust if the cable companies had their way.
The FCC mandated that they keep a few analog stations around for Grandma for
at least a few more years.

Actually the FCC mandate for analog carriage ends next February. After that , Grandma needs a converter.

 

[flashback]

reguarding the computer being the medium of tv shows, what about people like me who go on the internet at the same time i watch tv shows?

 

[Neel]

If they every get rid of OTA channels, I think they should have some kind of "freeview" system like they do in UK. The major networks should be on satellite and anyone who doesn't want to subscribe to cable or DirecTV, etc... can purchase an inexpensive dish and pick up the networks for free. That would free up the OTA band. The only problem I would see is that it would have to be a national or a regional feed of the networks as it would be impossible to carry every market.

 

[flashback]

If they every get rid of OTA channels, I think they should have some kind of "freeview" system like they do in UK. The major networks should be on satellite and anyone who doesn't want to subscribe to cable or DirecTV, etc... can purchase an inexpensive dish and pick up the networks for free. That would free up the OTA band. The only problem I would see is that it would have to be a national or a regional feed of the networks as it would be impossible to carry every market.

i thought there was no free tv in england.that there was a tax or fee to legally be able to have a tv show programs.i heard that from someone from england.

 

[fybush]

There is indeed a mandatory TV tax in the UK; it's used to fund the BBC.

"Freeview" is simply the UK equivalent of our over-the-air TV. It's not delivered by satellite, but rather by the same terrestrial transmitter network that was used for analog TV. (In Europe, as in much of the rest of the world, the TV stations don't own their transmitters but rather contract with national companies that operate the transmission system.)

It's still "free" in that there's no additional monthly fee for delivery of the broadcast signals, unlike cable (which is rare in the UK) or satellite (which has much more penetration there than here.)