• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

How much longer does cable have?

Now that ESPN and Fox One launched, it seems the two things keeping cable alive have finally gone off by themselves. Will that put cable in an even greater fall than already? It seems like the medium is barely holding on as is.
 
Cable companies will become (if they haven't already) ISPs with streaming services. End users will barely notice the difference.

It's true. Charter/Spectrum here in L.A. is pushing their Internet hardest in their external advertising, and when you go to the website, the only highlighted product is wireless.

If you click on "not a Spectrum customer ... get started" the Internet offers are all at the top of the page. Every plan offers a free first year of wireless and the first bundle is for Internet and two Mobile lines. If you keep scrolling, you have to get past the WiFi offer before finally getting to "Spectrum TV".

And the verbiage for that concentrates on streaming apps being included. No mention of cable-based video until you click through to the offered bundles.
 
I see that with Comcast especially they put more attention to their Xfinity internet service and subscription to their Peacock app. Plus for obvious reasons they stop emphasizing cable due to the Versant Spinoff. Yes its all about protecting NBC, Telemundo and Peacock in Comcasts case.
 
At my workplace (as a housekeeper), 75% of the vacation rental properties have a TV with streaming capabilities (guests enter log-ins) and access to over 200 binge-watch channels for free. The "This Old House" channel, the Kitchen Nightmares channel, the Family Feud channel, the Xena channel, etc. There's even a channel with 24/7 Barney, so toddlers can watch the purple dinosaur all day long.

The other 25% are a mix of Sparklight, DirecTV and Dish. A couple of properties are DVD-only! I am not surprised about all of this, as the average American family is watching live TV only sparingly (football being one example). The kids watch SpongeBob on Netflix or Paramount+ or wherever it is...NOT on Nickelodeon anymore. If they aren't watching Cocomelon or stupid TikToks first.

Imagine if Gen Alpha (or even my Gen Z's) had to spend a week living in September 1975. Oh, the horror, 4 channels (and maybe 1-2 indies) on the TV, no cell phones, no YouTube, no internet, no TikTok. They would spontaneously combust within 48 hours.
 
I know there's a heavy focus on younger people, but you have to think about elders as well. I am 40 years old, and I know quite a few people my age who still have cable. As someone said, I think it's mostly for sports. But also, it's what we're used to. And there's still several people older than me who still have cable. What are they gonna do? I don't think cable companies can just drop their cable service, or their customers would get very angry. I have Comcast and I think I have what is probably the most state-of-the-art system. I have a cable box that connects via internet, there's no coaxial cable needed. But it still has all the channels you would get if you had regular cable. However, the picture quality is not that great.

Another thing I wonder about is people replacing cable with an antenna. Because in a way, that makes no sense. Sure, you can get the locals (in a lot of areas, but not all), but no cable networks. Besides, in a lot of areas an antenna does not produce a very good picture, because of reception. There are still a lot of people living in areas where there is no OTA reception, such as Cape Cod. What do those people do when they cut the cord?
 
I don't think cable companies can just drop their cable service, or their customers would get very angry.
In most places, their customers would have no recourse. My dad's cable company dropped the cable service earlier this year. They recommended DirecTV or YouTube TV as replacements. My dad simply decided to do without, and rely on fringe OTA reception.
 
I don't think cable companies can just drop their cable service, or their customers would get very angry.

Some small systems already have.


Another thing I wonder about is people replacing cable with an antenna. Because in a way, that makes no sense. Sure, you can get the locals (in a lot of areas, but not all), but no cable networks. Besides, in a lot of areas an antenna does not produce a very good picture, because of reception. There are still a lot of people living in areas where there is no OTA reception, such as Cape Cod. What do those people do when they cut the cord?

The real question is which cable networks are really that important to viewers? I disconnected from video service almost ten years ago (my Spectrum service is broadband-only) and found enough OTA diginets to keep me satisfied.

I don't think cable companies should be forced to maintain infrastructure for a relative handful of people who have poor or non-existent OTA reception. What Scott just said while I was writing this is the reality.

Cable companies are quickly becoming ISPs. Some are also mobile companies. Television? No longer the most important service.
 
I know there's a heavy focus on younger people, but you have to think about elders as well. I am 40 years old, and I know quite a few people my age who still have cable. As someone said, I think it's mostly for sports. But also, it's what we're used to. And there's still several people older than me who still have cable. What are they gonna do?
40 isn’t elderly. I’m also 40 and haven’t had cable since I was at college and it was the college’s cable system. I don’t know anyone else my age or older around here that has cable.
 
40 isn’t elderly. I’m also 40 and haven’t had cable since I was at college and it was the college’s cable system. I don’t know anyone else my age or older around here that has cable.

I turned 69 a few months ago. As I said two posts ago, I unsubscribed from video a decade ago. I don't feel any loss.

I believe @ssetta is laboring under a misconception over who still cares about cable television.
 
My market (Mankato, MN) Consolidated Communications dropped cable a year or so ago. There is still Spectrum in town but Consolidated was the Telco under older names. Consolidated tells you to sub to Directv or check out the other streaming services out there
 
I'm 42 and I can't remember the last time I had cable TV. Girlfriend uses streaming services, I use rss feeds for national news and TV channels Facebook feed for local news. I do maintain several streaming services myself. I see cable like I see AM radio. Almost pointless when other methods are better and cheaper. But that's me and I'm in the city
 
I'm 71 and replaced cable with an indoor antenna for OTA locals and Roku for streaming in 2018 when Spectrum's triple play package hit $180 without a single premium channel.
I did that in 2010, when I moved to an apartment complex who's owners refused to allow Cox Cable in (the provider had Dish Network, which I don't like either, but their ISP was decent). I used an antenna and whatever streaming services Roku had. Fortunately, one of those was MLB.TV.

I did sign up for DirecTV in 2013, mainly for NFL Sunday Ticket, and kept it until 2021, when it became way too expensive (over $200/month) and had reliability issues. YouTube TV was far cheaper and I had to just deal with the NFL on streaming audio until last season when they took over Sunday Ticket.
Cable used to have quality channels at a reasonable cost a generation ago, now it has neither
Cable and satellite services are rapidly becoming obsolete. They had a good run. DirecTV made it clear years ago that their satellites would eventually die, and they would not be maintained in the long haul. They haven't died yet, but they will. Most cable providers will become strictly ISPs with TV via streaming before this decade is out.
 
Well we are going to look at Cable TV in the same way we looked at the recent AOL shutdown of their dial-up internet service at some point. The amazing part is what part of the country do I have to look for where people were using dial-up all the way to 2025 while the rest of the country changed to 5G internet service. I think we will have to look for places where Cable TV is really important while the rest of the country switch to streaming TV apps in my case. I can see urban/suburban areas leaving Cable TV first for Streaming.
 
I think we will have to look for places where Cable TV is really important while the rest of the country switch to streaming TV apps in my case. I can see urban/suburban areas leaving Cable TV first for Streaming.

And I can see the cable companies finding cost-effective ways to bring fiber-based Internet to those areas where OTA television reception is weak (they already serve the areas where it's essentially non-existent). They will adapt to providing those services which are in demand.
 
All these channels and I maybe watch 10. Most of them sports.

Similar, yet opposite experience: I get dozens of OTA diginets and I watch maybe a half-dozen on any kind of regular basis.

(Not a sports viewer ... much of my viewing is rewatching shows I liked when they were new.)
 


Back
Top Bottom