One Reason Why Many Of Us Quit Cable/Satellite Tv

Discussion in 'The Barber Shop' started by Phog Allen, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. Phog Allen

    Phog Allen Contributor

    Hey gents. I saw this article on msnbc today and it sort of made me feel a bit smarter for pulling the plug on DishNetwork a couple of years ago. Now mind, this is not really a rant but more an affirmation of where I suspected things were heading. I have no reason to doubt the numbers they speak of in the article but I do think the shift to DVOD(digital video on demand as I call it) will be ushered in much sooner than later. I like the line in the article that says the current pay tv model with only change very slowly. Gee, where have I heard this before? AT&T with their monopoly pre 1983? RIAA mid 90's? Now the MPAA and certainly the cable/sat providers. They will make every attempt to assure us there will be dire consequences if we stray from their price and service model. I have to laugh at this stuff. It is the same mentality which originally prevailed about mobile phone service. It would never appeal to more than the professional services like lawyers and doctors. The plebes would never need it. I am sure we are not geeky enough to understand that streaming Netflix or Hulu Plus for $8 a month is a bad thing for us.

    Cheers, Todd
     
  2. The only thing I'm missing by not having cable is that I don't have to pay $90 a month.
     
  3. I went from att uverse and cellphone...to direct tv and Verizon..what a great combo!
     
  4. I miss nothing. With Netflix streaming I get all the movies and shows I really need (always was so far behind everything). I only care about certain sports teams and can get the steaming broadcasts of only that I'm interested in with ESPN and other apps on my iPhone. Only thing I miss right now is the current season of Game of Thrones, but I'm reading the books so no loss there and I'll probably buy the second season when it is out on itunes.
     
  5. I get nearly ALL my viewing content from netflix, both on DVD and streaming. If there is something I really want to see and I can't wait for it to hit netflix, I will buy it on itunes.

    This does not work for everything though, as HBO and Showtime don't make their content available until well after their seasons are over.
    This model will have to change.
    HBO and Showtime are likely afraid of upsetting Time Warner and the other big cable monopolies. At some point though, they will realize that people would rather go to their websites and pay to stream things.

    I hope the death is slow and painful for cable, as I hate the cable companies and I think that they deserve everything that's coming to them.

    heh.. I hear stories my parents tell about something called "the phone company" that charged people money to use a phone that was... get this... permanently tethered to the wall! Can you IMAGINE! And you couldn't leave the house with it, obviously.
     
  6. I also have no regrets about ditching cable/satellite. I have an HD tuner with a roof mount antenna for traditional channels, and use a Roku with Amazon/Netflix/Hulu for everything else. What am I missing? Paying a truckload of money each year to watch the same thing over and over. The same infomercials that are on cable all day are free on HDTV! Rerun after rerun are getting a bit old on the old cable channels.
     
  7. I'm still one of the clingers (I work in the industry) so I don't necessarily want to cut my own throat so to speak. Some of the issue is right now why your bill is so high is because of the content they deliver. You don't get HBO and Showtime stuff for quite some time because oddly enough it's the cable and satellite operators that pay the broadcasters for content. So HBO doesn't actually cater to the cable companies, it's the other way around. They all just want their $$. They know they're losing video customers, but they're making up for it on the IP side and trying to get small business to sign up. That and cellular backhaul is big $$$$. That call you make, or the content you stream gets carried on a land line just like the good 'ol days phone calls do...
     
  8. Theres nothing much good on anyway, too much reality non-sense. If one could pick and pay for only the channels one wanted it would be sweet but with corportate greed that may never happen...
     
  9. Why is it that the more expensive a service is, the more annoying they think they can make it?
    On Sky satellite TV over here, as well as normal advertising, you are force-fed ads for other Sky programs. The quantity of their self-promotion is insane. Hello ... I already subscribe to your service, why are you wasting my time with promotions for it?
    The channels have their logos plastered over the programs. Again ... why? (Strangely the logos disappear when adverts are on, contradicting their explanations of why they are needed. At the exact time you might actually NEED to be told what channel is showing!)
    Even that's not intrusive enough for their rabid need to try and brainwash us. They shrink the program credits so they can show to the side even more trailers encouraging us to watch more.
    And now (sigh) they even overlay the actual programs with promotions for other ones.
    I dread to think what future annoyances are in the pipeline. I think by the end of this year I will stop watching TV completely. I've already stopped watching new shows, I don't want to get caught by that "one show" that makes it worth keeping the service.
     
  10. The only thing I hate is that my ISP is the same company as the cable company (in my area, Charter). I think AT&T offers DSL in my area too. I wish I could find a decent ISP that charged in the realm of $30/mo that was not associated with phone and cable service also.
     
  11. +1. Another reason is because every cable/satellite package comes with sports of some kind which are the most expensive channels to carry. ESPN charges providers $4.69/household for their channel (only ESPN. This does not include ESPN2, ESPN NEWS, ect.) which is 4x the price/household of the next-closest national cable channel (TNT at $1.16). Unfortunately for me, sports is the only reason I would never think of dropping cable/satellite at the time being. I get up at 3am to watch F1 races live just incase there is an issue with the DVR. I don't think I could wait to see highlights or watch replays online.

    While yes, I agree that cable tv is expensive. What I think a lot of people fail to consider is the costs associated in providing you that service. Not only do they have to pay the broadcast companies, but they have to physically get the signal to you the end consumer. They don't have lines only running to the houses that use their service. They have to prep EVERYWHERE to keep themselves competitive with satellite. There are huge costs associated with running all that cabling just-in-case you want to turn on their service.
     
  12. Icefilms.info everything on there is at least dvd quality with shows being up within an hour of being shown ENJOY
     
  13. Dropped pay TV many years ago. There's already too much not to watch on regular TV, I can't see paying for the insult.
     

  14. Are those legal streams?
     
  15. Phog Allen

    Phog Allen Contributor

    I will add a bit more here. Even though I understand the pay for rights expense that cable/sat have we also need to remember they want it this way. Like the old Ma Bell they spent their way into control of the industry. Because until the advent of app enabled bluray players a few years ago if you wanted access to to ANY content you went through them. Yes consumer demand drives it as well but now the consumer is caught on the backend of these giant $$$ deals for content at just the same time it is dawning on the industry we understand and want the ability to use a data pipeline into our homes for what we want and not giant packages of channels we never watch. Let alone pay 100 plus dollars per month for it.

    Even well heeled folks I have talked with are balking at these ridiculous package prices. Much like $500 is sort of the de facto threshold for electronic devices such as teles, pcs, and game boxes, so is $75-100 the upper limit that consumers want to drop on video delivery. If $125 per month becomes common then the cable industry had better have back up employment ready because there will be a mighty exodus rivaling Moses' affair in Egypt. As the article mentions the only reason the industry manages to keep numbers of subs even close to static is because of apartment and dormitory complexes. Individual numbers have dropped several percent. I think they will be forced to completely revamp their delivery models. As for infrastructure costs yes it is huge but conversion to strictly data delivery is here. Even basiccable is delivered "digitally " so the data pipeline is already in place for most urban areas. Eventually I think you will install an app on your tele for each provider you want to pay for. Consumers are willing to pay for content they watch but are bloody tired of paying a lot more for what they don't watch.

    Cheers, Todd
     
  16. Cable is outdated. Netflix + Internet = 99% of what is on TV. If you really like sports, they sell packages to watch those online.
     
  17. I'll go against the grain here and say that I love my cable TV. The free to air channels in Australia are really poor so if you want to want anythibg decent theen cable is a great way to do it.
     
  18. But that is completely unnecessary now. All we need is internet access. If they can still provide that, great. But I can't think of any reason that television needs to be delivered by a cable company when content owners can just stream it directly to you from their sites. Isn't cable just an unnecessary middle man now? (except if they provide an internet connection).
     
  19. It is absolutely necessary, where do you think the internet access comes from? Thin air? There is still an enormous amount of infrastructure to provide internet access, actually it's the exact same that delivers the video and phone to your home. So cable is actually not the middle man, and if you make the "wireless" argument to internet access, that relies on all the infrastructure too. Wireless is very weak so you have to be close to the source, so that "wireless" signal still gets transported down all that cable.
     
  20. Except that the cable company isn't the only game in town anymore. You can get internet through DSL, satellite, 4G, fiber, and the next generation of wireless technologies will eliminate the need for last mile cables all-together. They need to change their business model to account for that, but so far all they've done is try to lock customers in through restrictive distribution of content.
     

Share This Page