Right, I was using cable as a general term, but who (in the US) owns DSL? Phone giants like AT&T, Verizon, etc. Satellite, same issue, 4G, fiber etc.. is all owned by the large telco's and cable companies. Also, the hip small company that's out there to "battle the giants" is paying the giants for carriage because they can't install their own infrastructure. Those wireless technologies aren't here yet, and I'd argue it won't eliminate the last mile, and even if it does, there's the thousands of miles in between that are still being carried by infrastructure that has a cost. Content distribution is a whole different ballgame and the restrictions aren't usually put in place by the IP but the content originator. The IP, regardless of who it is simply delivers what content has been allowed.
One Reason Why Many Of Us Quit Cable/Satellite Tv
- Thread starter Phog Allen
- Start date
Right, I was using cable as a general term, but who (in the US) owns DSL? Phone giants like AT&T, Verizon, etc. Satellite, same issue, 4G, fiber etc.. is all owned by the large telco's and cable companies. Also, the hip small company that's out there to "battle the giants" is paying the giants for carriage because they can't install their own infrastructure. Those wireless technologies aren't here yet, and I'd argue it won't eliminate the last mile, and even if it does, there's the thousands of miles in between that are still being carried by infrastructure that has a cost. Content distribution is a whole different ballgame and the restrictions aren't usually put in place by the IP but the content originator. The IP, regardless of who it is simply delivers what content has been allowed.
I guess you didn't read this:
they ARE the middle man when it comes to content. IF I have the internet (regardless of provider... the cable co, phone co, satellite, whatever...) I can get content from a lot of provider's sites directly. And I think this will happen more and more.
There is no reason to pay for television if you have the internet, IMO. Unless you can't wait for something specific to become available through other means.
So, if I have internet access (even if it is through the local cable company) why should I ALSO pay for them to deliver the content via one of their entertainment packages, that I can get online anyway?
Call me backwoods or old fashioned, but I still have dish and don't own a smart phone. I don't do the ap stuff and my internet provider doesn't carry most of the live streaming from ESPN and others. Just FYI, I am 30, so it isn't because I am old. I guess I am just not worried about it. I am sure those of you who have upgraded really enjoy it and I probably would also.
- Thread starter
- #24
COHunter makes a great point. As far as infrastructure goes, yes, the generic cable/sat/telco provide that infrastructure. And the costs of maintenance, to include upgrades are not cheap. Where I make the distinction is content delivery. This is precisely where the old business models are on borrowed time. It is a catch22 right now. The cable and satellite providers made lot of deals before the real avalanche of streaming services took off a year or so ago. Now they have billions invested in rights no consumer wants to pay $150 per month for. They approached as if people would have to come to them forever for content.
When Netflix first started the all you can eat streaming I distinctly remember seeing various news articles that treated it like a secondary service that was crap and would never be a serious contender for primary viewing by consumers. They missed it by a league. Same as the major telcos missed it that many people would give up their land line phones in an instant for a wireless service that ended their long distance bills. Ask anyone who has lived in a small town where almost EVERY phone you called was long distance. Didn't matter if it was ten miles away it was a different carrier in a different calling area. Long distance was a real concern. So what did AT&T do? They started offering these "deals" for $50 per month you could have unlimited calling in the U.S. caller ID, call waiting, etc. Except you could not take the phone with you. Look at any suburban or even slightly rural area. Land line phone service is dead. And no one in industry would ever admit it till it was just...gone. Same with cable pricing. Look at the article again. The author clearly makes the point that cable pricing/rights/structuring is in for a major overhaul. I would prefer to think of it as a giant enema. It is needed. This is where the battle will be fought. Cable/sat trying to recoup their investments and folks like me who just want a data pipeline and separate content providers. I predict it will end MUCH sooner than anyone ever thought.
Cheers, Todd
When Netflix first started the all you can eat streaming I distinctly remember seeing various news articles that treated it like a secondary service that was crap and would never be a serious contender for primary viewing by consumers. They missed it by a league. Same as the major telcos missed it that many people would give up their land line phones in an instant for a wireless service that ended their long distance bills. Ask anyone who has lived in a small town where almost EVERY phone you called was long distance. Didn't matter if it was ten miles away it was a different carrier in a different calling area. Long distance was a real concern. So what did AT&T do? They started offering these "deals" for $50 per month you could have unlimited calling in the U.S. caller ID, call waiting, etc. Except you could not take the phone with you. Look at any suburban or even slightly rural area. Land line phone service is dead. And no one in industry would ever admit it till it was just...gone. Same with cable pricing. Look at the article again. The author clearly makes the point that cable pricing/rights/structuring is in for a major overhaul. I would prefer to think of it as a giant enema. It is needed. This is where the battle will be fought. Cable/sat trying to recoup their investments and folks like me who just want a data pipeline and separate content providers. I predict it will end MUCH sooner than anyone ever thought.
Cheers, Todd
I will absolutely agree with Phog Allen's point, that is the trap the "traditional" providers are in. Contractually bound, but so are the streaming services hence why you have large content "gaps". What streaming services offer is largely the "ala carte" model that many enjoy, you can pick what you want and not have to subscribe to a package of channels with it. One way or another though, the carriage rights are paid to the content owners, so yes right now those services are relatively inexpensive, but I see it getting more expensive as agreements for carriage are reached.
I cut my cable TV subscription in 2001 and have lived without any form of television subscription since then. I have not missed it for a minute. I have been especially glad to be free of mass media and adverts being constantly pumped into my head. When I go to a restaurant I make an effort to sit somewhere where I can't see a TV.
I watch movies from time to time... that's about it.
I watch movies from time to time... that's about it.
My biggest gripe after dropping Dish Network was the lack of football during the bowl season of 2009/2010... but then I figured out how to steam ESPN via my laptop to the USB port of my TV... Then ESPN cracked down and made you have a cable account to stream the best games... but aha... we now have X-Box Live and it has ESPN streaming that is better than on the computer! Picture in picture and multi game angles. So with Netflix / Hulu / X-Box Live and a good digital antenna and I'm a happy camper... But I must admit I get my fix of things like HBO's "Game of Thrones" when I'm on the road...
I think this one of cables biggest challenges. If some legal action is successful at forcing cable providers to unbundle their channels and offer them ala cart, then many people will obviously cancel the ones they don't watch. Take ESPN, if half the households canceled, the remaining watchers would be forced to pick up the actual cost, and if the price rose too much then it would create a vicious cycle of additional subscriber loss and price hikes. I would expect ripple effects in multi-year TV contracts with professional sports leagues and pressure on player salaries.
You can search around for different reports, but Netflix already accounts for more that 1/3 of internet traffic. And cable providers are not happy about just being a neutral video transport service.
OldSaw
The wife's investment
Umm... yes, actually. There is absolutely no reason why it can't all be propagated through thin air now days. With all the advertising that goes on on the internet, there is also no reason why it should cost the end user a huge monthly fee.
I've toyed with the idea of dropping my cable service.
I would miss many channels. Most things I won't be able to stream until after they've aired on regular TV. At least, this is what I understand....
To get the "better" selection, seems you need service from a few different places. Like Hulu, Netflix and whichever other. At average $8/ month or some with charge per d/l you're not too far off from your regular cable price.
I was none too impressed with the Netflix selection.
Also, the other crappy thing for me is I will also have to pay for and X box Gold membership just to do these things?
So, what are you folks doing with success?
How do you watch your local news and such?
I would miss many channels. Most things I won't be able to stream until after they've aired on regular TV. At least, this is what I understand....
To get the "better" selection, seems you need service from a few different places. Like Hulu, Netflix and whichever other. At average $8/ month or some with charge per d/l you're not too far off from your regular cable price.
I was none too impressed with the Netflix selection.
Also, the other crappy thing for me is I will also have to pay for and X box Gold membership just to do these things?
So, what are you folks doing with success?
How do you watch your local news and such?
We've never paid for television. Never went down that cable road. When broadcasting signals were changed in 2008 we lost the ability to watch network television, something we hadn't done in several years anyway. We got around to buying a decently sized flat screen TV last year, just so we could better enjoy watching our DVDs. Still can't tune in though. Too bad.
You don't miss what you never had. Besides which, there are too many books to read, too much music to hear, and even forums in which to participate.
You don't miss what you never had. Besides which, there are too many books to read, too much music to hear, and even forums in which to participate.
- Thread starter
- #33
Hi Rick. Good questions. As of the moment I would say Netflix or Hulu Plus account coupled with an over the air antenna is not a one to one replacement for a cable or satellite package. It just isn't. However, for our situation it is nearly perfect. Before we made the switch we had broadband and land phone through local cable and video from Dish. The cable company's bill hit nearly $75 per month when the services were supposed to $29 for Internet and $18 for basic phone. Why? Taxes surely? Nope. They hit me with a ten dollar "line access fee " for not having a video package. And a tonne of other non tax fees and charges. When tallied up it added $27 per month to the bill! Plus we were paying $75 per month to Dish.
Solution? We dropped it all and went with AT&T uverse Internet service with 12mbs download speed. $45 per month with $3 equipment fee(gateway/router) plus taxes equaled $49.35 per month. We added Netflix for about $8.50 tax inclusive. Total= approx. $58 per month. We finally had an increase from AT&T TO $48 and $5 equipment fee for a total of $54.50 or so. Total now is about $63 per month. And the speed is great. Enough to tlrun two Netflix streams simultaneously and allow Pc usage for online schooling. And it is over ten dollars per month less than Dish or the old cable service.
We ported the phone over to Tmobile pre-paid and bought a $100 card which lasted us nearly nine months. So we now pay essentially less than half what we did before for BETTER Internet service, better phone service, and video service we are more than satisfied with. We are saving nearly $1000 per year. And we don't t watch as much tele as we did which is good.
Provisos. You need to know what your Internet provider's policy is on bandwidth. Uverse is very generous. 250gb cap and we have never been so much as cautioned we were approaching it. And the kids watch a lot of Netflix. ESPN3 streaming. The provider must be approved and uverse is. The local cable company is as well(I think) but their bandwidth caps are ridiculous. Everyone I know who uses it with any streaming service runs over all the time.
I say all this because most of us who go this route are doing it for economic reasons. Not because it is a direct replacement for pay Tv. As others mention after awhile you don't even miss much of that stuff you were watching. If you need regional sports networks or premium stuff like HBO it is best to stick to cable. Eventually I believe you will be able to subscribe by channel or by channel groups via an app of some sort you install to your Tv or bluray player. As COhunter said prices will go up for streaming services but I believe not at the rate we've seen cable skyrocket. Till then it will be a muddled mix. I am enjoying the pricing while I can.
Cheers, Todd
Solution? We dropped it all and went with AT&T uverse Internet service with 12mbs download speed. $45 per month with $3 equipment fee(gateway/router) plus taxes equaled $49.35 per month. We added Netflix for about $8.50 tax inclusive. Total= approx. $58 per month. We finally had an increase from AT&T TO $48 and $5 equipment fee for a total of $54.50 or so. Total now is about $63 per month. And the speed is great. Enough to tlrun two Netflix streams simultaneously and allow Pc usage for online schooling. And it is over ten dollars per month less than Dish or the old cable service.
We ported the phone over to Tmobile pre-paid and bought a $100 card which lasted us nearly nine months. So we now pay essentially less than half what we did before for BETTER Internet service, better phone service, and video service we are more than satisfied with. We are saving nearly $1000 per year. And we don't t watch as much tele as we did which is good.
Provisos. You need to know what your Internet provider's policy is on bandwidth. Uverse is very generous. 250gb cap and we have never been so much as cautioned we were approaching it. And the kids watch a lot of Netflix. ESPN3 streaming. The provider must be approved and uverse is. The local cable company is as well(I think) but their bandwidth caps are ridiculous. Everyone I know who uses it with any streaming service runs over all the time.
I say all this because most of us who go this route are doing it for economic reasons. Not because it is a direct replacement for pay Tv. As others mention after awhile you don't even miss much of that stuff you were watching. If you need regional sports networks or premium stuff like HBO it is best to stick to cable. Eventually I believe you will be able to subscribe by channel or by channel groups via an app of some sort you install to your Tv or bluray player. As COhunter said prices will go up for streaming services but I believe not at the rate we've seen cable skyrocket. Till then it will be a muddled mix. I am enjoying the pricing while I can.
Cheers, Todd
- Thread starter
- #34
I thought I should something about ESPN3. The only device I know of that has an app for it is xbox360. I don't own one so cannot speak to costs. We access it through Playon or hook up the pcl the tele. No cost.
Cheers, Todd
Cheers, Todd
Interesting, so where is this technology? So in thin air your request to a server 3000 miles away is all carried like radio waves? Satellite internet does it to an extent (but it still relies on hard network infrastructure too), but by and large every piece of electronic communication goes down a physical pipeline. Even if it was in "thin air" it still wouldn't be free. Kind of like the electric car example. The electricity still has to come from somewhere, it's not "just there" for us to use.
Grrr. I'm working my way through the Sopranos. One of the nice things about this show is the different music at the end of each episode. They play a track over the credits, one that echoes the mood of the episode. It's a classy touch that gives a satisfying conclusion to the show.
But in the episode I just recorded, Sky decided to interrupt the credits - and music - to plug another program. Enough is enough.
- Thread starter
- #38
I am unsure of what is exactly what in the Mac world but last weekend a young bloke who works at Best Buy demonstrated this feature to me using both his iPhone and the store's Ipad. Very slick. It is stuff like this that I believe will bring the obsolescence of current pay Tv structures much sooner than anyone wants to think. Just today I saw an article in the NYT which says Walnart is launching a Dvd to digital file service complete with cloud storage and you stream your Dvds when you want. This is why I do not consider what I have been predicting to be anything too special. Just like Netflix streaming, when the light goes on over the average consumer 's about what can be done with a cheap stream it will be pandelerium..
Cheers, Todd
Last edited:
OldSaw
The wife's investment
What I mean is just like "on air" TV. Of course there is real hardware that generates the signals (I used to be an electronics technician, so I know how it works). What I'm getting at is that over the air internet should and could easily be free to the end user just like TV. We get bombarded with advertising on the internet as it is and we shouldn't have to pay for it.
OldSaw
The wife's investment
Ironically, my boss just bought us a coal burning/nuclear/gas burning Chevy Volt. It's a pretty cool little vehicle.
