Pulling the plug on cable TV

[Mark Giardina]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/30/technology/dropping_cable_tv/

 

[w9wi]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/30/technology/dropping_cable_tv/

Saw that article.

I can't find the reader comments anymore. (suspect the site doesn't like my popup blocker)

Noticed several of them said they'd bought a digital box and/or antenna & were watching OTA now.

We've noticed something similar. I'm an engineer at a TV station; we hear from about 3-5 viewers every week asking for help getting their OTA reception working. Most cite the high cost of cable/satellite as their reason for going OTA.

If you consider the number who prefer some other station (and called *their* engineers instead of ours), and the number who didn't have any problems (and thus didn't call *anyone*) I think it's a reasonable guess that a few hundred people are going OTA every week here in the Nashville area.

 

[landtuna]

After 20 years of satellite and cable (beginning with C-band in the 80's) I dumped pay-TV for OTA last year.

I'm fully able to pay the $70/month it was costing me but it was largely a waste of money since I was the only one in my family to watch and even I was watching less and less over time. The proliferation of programming sameness and huge increase in the number of repetitive commercials drove me crazy.

I do miss some sports channels but nothing else. Pay-TV should provide something besides old network reruns and so-called "reality" shows for all the money they collect.

OTA is far from perfect but at least I don't write them a check every month.

 

[upstate29651]

So where's the value? I mean, in order to achieve what people are doing in the article, they're remaining tethered to "big cable" or "big phone" for their broadband needs (Hulu, etc). As we know, everything is "bundled" nowadays. Yes, there is some cost savings by dumping the video portion of a cable service, but it cannot be that much. Plus, with the looming threat of content providers charging for their product (again, Hulu, etc), will there be any real, sizable savings?

G

 

[1st of 5]

When cable was new to everyone, back in the early to mid 80s, it was worth the cost. Local OTA TV and the "Big 3" networks had outlived and abused their usefulness. Cable TV was a breath of fresh air, with much more variety, sports, music videos, a lot more old, forgotten classic movies and cult/niche programming. But that was then and this is now. All the same crap on all 500 channels. Compare OTA and CATV/SATV program schedules. You will discover that, besides the current movies you can rent at the RedBox or buy at Walmart/Amazon.com, most of the programming is the same. Seinfeld, King of Queens, Frasier, 3 1/2 Men, etc, etc.....The Weather Channel no longer shows weather, MTV/VHI/FUSE, no longer air music videos, HBO/SHO no longer feature non-stop movies, TBS/WGN are no longer "Superstations", so why bother paying for that crap when the new DTV scam offers about the same mindless dribble for free, (after the cost of buying a new DTV, a high end amplified UHF outdoor antenna and the juice to power them)? I unplugged CATV 7 years ago, when I noticed that there was no longer anything worth wasting my time for. Now, when I happen to watch someone else's CATV/SATV, there's really nothing worth paying for. For the last 6 years I have been viewing my own TV channel with box sets of old uncut, commercial free TV shows obtained from a variety of outlets, programmed when I want to watch them, as many times as I want to watch them. Who needs CATV/SATV? Unless they can provide something new or different that we can't get anywhere else, spend your money somewhere else!

 

[1st of 5]

I forgot to mention how annoying it is to have all of those incessant bugs, tickertapes, dazzle dots, flicker spots, down along the bottom or screen corners, edges, promoting some other show or event, distracting one from watching the show that you want to watch. Why don't those lousy stations just do a "Bloomberg" format, minimizing the screenshot of the main feature into some obscure corner and have the rest of the screen to fling their promotional feces all over the place?

 

[kenglish]

I figure that, between OTA TV, broadcast and shortwave radio, FTA (Free-to-Air) satellite TV and radio, and a fair collection of DVDs and VHS tapes, I've got enough to keep me entertained for a few more lifetimes.

And, I don't help Comcast, DirecTV and DISH Network pay for advertising, either.

 

[dave73]

I got rid of cable years ago, and I got rid of DirecTV in 2002 due to losing my primary job, and couldn't afford to pay the bill (that bill was included in my bankruptcy, even though I didn't want it included and wanted to pay it off). During that time, I had learned to live without cable & satellite when I worked 2nd shift & 10 hour shifts. When I considered getting satellite again, I dind't like the cost of the packages, & most channels I used to watch have crappy programming on them, & one channel I watched was acquired by another company & the channel was taken off the air. Since that time, I haven't really missed paid TV. When the coupons from the government became available, I got my boxes, but didn't have time to hook them up until last year. I always had other commitments on weekends that prevented me from working on the outdoor antenna until one Saturday after I worked a double shift, and couldn't commit to my weekend errands. I used that time to work on the outdoor antenna by stringing new RG6 coax cable & running a splitter for the living room & my bedroom. My box was hooked up immediately, while my mother kept waiting for hers to be hooked up. She refused to have hers hooked up, claiming that she needed the area around her TV cleaned up. She refused to do that, and on June 11, I told her "either have your box hooked up, or have no TV tomorrow". Even with the extra choices on TV, my mother still wants cable. I've lived long enough to not want it anymore. My mom never liked satellite.

I have DSL for internet. Comcast charges too much for internet and service goes out a lot in my neighborhood. I watch certain shows online if I missed it on TV (or if I don't have paid TV, then see if the show is online and watch it, if available). I however will not pay to watch TV shows online. If it means I go back to times when TV wasn't around, then that's the chance I have to take. I'll just have a TV for local TV channels (watch what might be good on TV) and a DVD player for watching movies on DVD (along with TV shows on DVD, and I only have Family Guy so far).

 

[philosofy]

Until there is a decent way to get live sports in HD over the net I will keep my Directv account active. The only way I have found to watch sports for free is via sites like justin.tv or livestream. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it on a 42 inch screen. And things are only going to get worse for OTA as the new agreement between CBS/Turner/NCAA for March Madness moves the Final Four to cable every two years stating in 2016. Also all the BCS bowl games are headed to ESPN starting with the upcoming season.

 

[Jul]

Cable is the standard for TV viewing these days. For example, in Philly, you have to have comcast cable for FIOS to watch all the local broadcasts of the Flyers, Sixers and Phillies games since the games are on Comcast SportsNet and Comcast Network Philadelphia.

 

[imhomerjay]

There's a whole world outside Philly, Julius, believe it or not. :

 

[stationless listener]

My father recently cut Showtime since he didn't watch that channel. However, my parents and my brother are big-time "Real Time with Bill Maher" fans. So they just can't get rid of HBO just yet. They're also big Yankee fans, my mom especially. She wouldn't know what to do without YES and My9. Another problem is the difficulty of having a decent over-the-air reception in an urban core. Many landlords do not allow rooftop antennas, especially at buildings with multiple dwellings. Even though they live at one of the higher floors in the building, there isn't a direct way to get the signal from the antenna. My father got cable back in the 1980s and hasn't stopped since.

Then there is the fact that people who follow niche sports (hint: the beautiful game) have to get cable or satellite if they want to follow most games without having to watch the Spanish-language channels. Sites like Justin.tv and myp2p.eu are a crapshoot because you never know when the big lawyer would come down on the individuals who stream any particular game with a "Cease and desist" order, forcing a mad scramble to find an alternate link.

So there seems to be an increasing divide between the sports watches and the non-sports watchers. The non-sports watchers could potentially be a huge market and any company that can devise a platform to lure those types of viewers to their video service would potentially make tons of money. The sports fans are already paying a ton of money for their viewing pleasure and budgets are a bit strained right now. This may be something the Comcasts and the Time Waner Cables are really afraid of.

In the end, it depends of what your viewing habits are. If you don't watch TV much and don't like sports then maybe you should cut the cable. If you're a fan of a sports team that is almost exclusively on cable/satellite then it becomes a big problem if you can no longer afford the bill. You can't just start attending games because tickets are not cheap. Radio may be the main thing left for those people.

So while you hope that the masses cut their cable, the reality is much more complicated. Not everyone wants to nor can everyone be able to go OTA easily. We'll see more go that route but nothing near the avalanche of people you hope to see.

 

[Jul]

There's a whole world outside Philly, Julius, believe it or not. :

I know.

 

[dhett]

I had thought for some time that cable/satellite TV was a huge waste of money, but that opinion has been reinforced this past weekend while visiting family in NE PA.

My father has the Dish TV Classic Bronze 100 package. Take away the music channels and the infomercial/shopping channels that appear twice or more in the lineup, and there are maybe 20 channels fit to watch. So far, very little of the programming on those channels has been interesting - I've been watching the local nets with the exception of an occasional glance at ESPN. None of the local programming seems to be in HD and only about 25 of the non-OTA channels are. Local OTA subchannels of interest are RTV and Create - Dish doesn't have those either.

My folks subscribed to Dish specifically for the Christian programming, but Dish only carries 8 such channels, and 3 are available locally via LPTV stations not carried on Dish. One of the LPTV stations is digital and carries a Christian net and local programming that Dish doesn't carry. So where's the value?

 

[FreddyE1977]

It's Business 101, same as it's been since the first merchant traders set up roadside stands
along the Tigris and Euphrates....

If you abuse and mistreat your customers, overcharge them, play little shell games and
treat them like idiots, they are going to toss you overboard the very first chance they get.

In this case, emerging technology has provided us with that opportunity.

 

[philosofy]

"Then there is the fact that people who follow niche sports (hint: the beautiful game) have to get cable or satellite if they want to follow most games without having to watch the Spanish-language channels. Sites like Justin.tv and myp2p.eu are a crapshoot because you never know when the big lawyer would come down on the individuals who stream any particular game with a "Cease and desist" order, forcing a mad scramble to find an alternate link."

This is one case where I would kill for ala carte programming for sports. My wife and I would be content to watch show on Hulu or Netflix. But I can't get live sports decently via a streaming connection to my tv. I would be thrilled to see Directv, Dish or someone else carve out ESPN and the rest and offer to just sell me that. But of course the NFL Network is still fighting to get on TWC and other cable systems and the NFL would probably see that as a step backwards for them.

 

[FreddyE1977]

I had thought for some time that cable/satellite TV was a huge waste of money, but that opinion has been reinforced this past weekend while visiting family in NE PA.

My father has the Dish TV Classic Bronze 100 package. Take away the music channels and the infomercial/shopping channels that appear twice or more in the lineup, and there are maybe 20 channels fit to watch. So far, very little of the programming on those channels has been interesting - I've been watching the local nets with the exception of an occasional glance at ESPN. None of the local programming seems to be in HD and only about 25 of the non-OTA channels are. Local OTA subchannels of interest are RTV and Create - Dish doesn't have those either.

My folks subscribed to Dish specifically for the Christian programming, but Dish only carries 8 such channels, and 3 are available locally via LPTV stations not carried on Dish. One of the LPTV stations is digital and carries a Christian net and local programming that Dish doesn't carry. So where's the value?

If that is the programming which matters to them, SkyAngel is still out there. http://www.skyangel.com/home/Default.aspx#

 

[vchimpanzee]

Time Warner advertised $7.95 a month just before Feb. 17, 2009. Good deal! While an antenna would be cheaper in the long run (the price went up after a year but not much), I don't have to worry about signal problems, and I can use a TV/VCR combination or TiVo. Plus I get WGN! With the converter box, which I use for channels that aren't on the cable system, or when both TVs hooked up to cable are in use, I can set recording times but not channels. I've had a lot of stripes and squares which come with no sound, mostly in bad weather, and mostly since I replaced an older broken TV/VCR with a used one. I've had only one cable outage that lasted any length of time, and that wasn't even worth talking about. I have no complaints about Time Warner, except that they took Rush Limbaugh's station of the community announcements channel. Taping his show with a VCR might have been interesting once in a while. As it is, I just don't think about him.

I would also need multiple antennas if I wanted to watch stations in two different directions. I do have two antennas but they're both pointed one way, and the opposite direction from most of the cable stations, only so I can watch one show while taping "The Simpsons", and neither station is on my cable system. In theory, I could watch that one show and turn over to "The Simpsons"--if I don't forget to change the channel!

Internet from the phone company costs about the same as cable. It's not fast, but to protect my computer I limit myself to select sites at home, and even this site is usually satisfactory. The service was somewhat unreliable when I first got it, but I haven't had an outage at the time I was on the computer in more than a year.

Ironically, my phone bill is getting too high, even with no long-distance calls to speak of. I keep my phone service because Internet is so cheap, but if I could find cheaper phone service, then it means my Internet really costs more than I think it does.

 

[dave73]

I had thought for some time that cable/satellite TV was a huge waste of money, but that opinion has been reinforced this past weekend while visiting family in NE PA.

My father has the Dish TV Classic Bronze 100 package. Take away the music channels and the infomercial/shopping channels that appear twice or more in the lineup, and there are maybe 20 channels fit to watch. So far, very little of the programming on those channels has been interesting - I've been watching the local nets with the exception of an occasional glance at ESPN. None of the local programming seems to be in HD and only about 25 of the non-OTA channels are. Local OTA subchannels of interest are RTV and Create - Dish doesn't have those either.

My folks subscribed to Dish specifically for the Christian programming, but Dish only carries 8 such channels, and 3 are available locally via LPTV stations not carried on Dish. One of the LPTV stations is digital and carries a Christian net and local programming that Dish doesn't carry. So where's the value?

If that is the programming which matters to them, SkyAngel is still out there. http://www.skyangel.com/home/Default.aspx#

That might all good, but that requires a broadband connection with a high enough speed. For channels that are HD, you basically need broadband thru the cable since DSL doesn't usually go higher than 6mbps. FiOS isn't available everywhere to take advantage of higher speeds. Plus, not sure how much cable companies & the telecoms like Skyangel, since it uses lots of bandwidth. Comcast probably likes Skyangel the least as they don't even like Skype & Vonage. I know Skyangel wouldn't work as well in my neighborhood as DSL isn't as fast, but reliable, while Comcast is fast when it works, but usually out a lot.

 

[TexasTom]

Cable is the standard for TV viewing these days.

Not really. There are a number of television markets in the west where cable penetration is below 50%, so cable is far from the universal standard for TV viewing. In some markets, satellite now has more subscribers than cable, and in others OTA viewers still comprise a sizeable share of the audience.

As for what the future will bring -- many of us believe that digital TV could ultimately increase the number of OTA viewers, but we'll have to wait and see what actually happens.