7 ms·

The FCC could soon give more power to cable companies

80 points by GeorgeOrr 11y ago

PaulHoule 11y ago
I think they should just go a-la-carte on broadcast channels. My mother-in-law lives in a small city where she can pick up the big networks + PBS and some minor networks (CW, ion) with just rabbit ears. With an $80 antenna, I get 11 channels from a city that is 50 miles away. All I had to do is nail a bracket onto the edge of my roof. I am missing CBS and ABC, but I am planning to fill those in with a VHF antenna that points to another city. The difference in picture quality between the HD broadcast vs the compressed "HD" offered by TWC is night and day. It seems to me there is no value in getting a degraded copy of local broadcast TV on cable, so you should be able to opt out of it, or maybe just get broadcast stations that don't come in with your antenna.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > I think they should just go a-la-carte on broadcast channels. My understanding is that the cable companies want to do this, but a tangled web of long-term agreements to carry channels have painted them into a corner.
  - PaulHoule 11y ago
    Well, if the broadcasters get $ for cable subscriptions, broadcasters have a reason to want you to subscribe to cable. Also, the cable companies really don't want you to get into the OTA habit, since OTA has many of the things you want linear TV for and goes together with OTT like peanut butter and jelly. Do people think there is something ritually unclean about getting OTA television? I know that a lot of people that I talk to about my OTA setup seem to think I am doing something illegal.
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      Cable companies are more than happy to have you go OTA+OTT. They make far higher margins on their Internet offerings than on video.
  - marincounty 11y ago
    They probally would like to go a-la-carte, and charge a fortune for each channel? I sometimes think it was a mistake to let cable companies put their cables up, with these long term agreements? Agreements that always seem to favor cable companies? I've never understood these franchise agreements. I always thought if you allow one company put up their wires, you should allow multiple companies the right to use the same utility pole to put up their equipment. If said company goes bankrupt--the municipality/county would own those wires/fibers, and could sell, or lease to the next company? Or, just rip them off the poles? I'm kinda at the point where if I chief; I would rip out all the cable companies wires? I would let any company come in and put up new cables, but the service would need to be completely free. They would make money on advertising? The advertising couldn't get much worse? (The only good thing I heard about cable companies is in CA; there is a bill up for consideration requiring all monthly fees for cable boxes, and modems be eliminated. Or, something along those lines?)
- dublinben 11y ago
  You can stop paying for freely broadcast networks, and only pay for cable channels with a service like Sling TV. They've managed to work out the right deals to get basic cable, including ESPN, into a $20/mo package. The more people who start doing this, the less power broadcasters will have over distributors (cable, IPTV, etc.).
- MichaelApproved 11y ago
  > With an $80 antenna, I get 11 channels from a city that is 50 miles away. All I had to do is nail a bracket onto the edge of my roof. > I am missing CBS and ABC, but I am planning to fill those in with a VHF antenna that points to another city. > It seems to me there is no value in getting a degraded copy of local broadcast TV on cable So, you spent $80 and had to climb onto the roof to install it. You have existing knowledge about what antenna to purchase. You know you need a VHF antenna to get other channels. You know where to purchase this stuff. All of that isn't existing knowledge to the general public and climbing onto a room isn't a general skill-set. There is definite value in a cable guy coming in and setting everything up for you.
  - PaulHoule 11y ago
    Unless you stay home to wait for the cable guy and he never shows up...
  - dhimes 11y ago
    Actually, we're only a generation away from when people did exactly that. My father bought his TV antenna, as did everyone else I knew. Installed it an the roof (a big, unwieldy thing), stood there and turned it's direction while I called up when the picture was best. So, it's not that far-fetched.
tired_man 11y ago
Broadcast is a moot point for anyone with a computer and at least a DSL connection. I'm done with instant broadcast by any method if it's supported with commercials. I have little time free to watch TV. It's too valuable to waste 15-20 minutes out of every hour on commercials.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Except when it's not a moot point. My wife likes to watch soccer when it's on. We have basic cable, so we don't have ESPN. It's either watch using an antenna attached to our TV, watch using low def blurry crap the cable company shows or use some virus-laden app to watch it with a computer.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    > using low def blurry crap the cable company shows This drives me nuts. They strip program information, they downgrade the signal, they include a hundred or so music channels that nobody wants, they broadcast blank channels, and the periodically re-arrange the channels (or change/upgrade/downgrade the basic plan). I can't go to my grandmother's house without having to spend an hour or so to re-do all of her channels on her TV sets; and then try to explain to a 90-yr old why the channels are different.
    - tunap 11y ago
      Seriously, the SD on DTV is bad. Add to that the sport broadcasters using the 'not-so' latest greatest equipment(Canuck NHL teams, the worst) and it looks like you time-warped back to watching TV in the '70s.
    - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
      LOL. Is there a real reason for them to need to rearrange the channels? I don't get it.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
wnevets 11y ago
Alot of people who grew up with cable don't even realize broadcast stations exist. I've had to explain to multiple people that you dont need cable to get abc, nbc, etc.
- ergothus 11y ago
  ...and yet, if you want to watch, say, the Superbowl online, you do need cable.
  - 300bps 11y ago
    NBC streamed it to anyone for free on their website: http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/nbc-will-live-stream-the-super-bowl-for-free/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/nbc-will-live-stream-the-su...
    - tunap 11y ago
      I am unsure of terms for the SuperBowl, but if I want to watch Motocross online I have hoops to jump through to prove I pay for an NBC channel in my cable/sat packege. I do not have a cable/sat package, so therefore I cannot watch on their website.
      - thaas53 11y ago
        You can watch all the motos here: http://www.promotocross.com/mx/video http://www.promotocross.com/mx/video Maybe not live but I watched both 450 Unadilla motos the following Sunday evening. I have no cable/sat package.
        tunap 11y ago
        Yup, MX has been offering post race viewing since 2012(AFAIK). Been waiting for SX to follow suit. Original point stands, broadcaster streaming offerings are worthless to uncabled viewers if they cannot prove they pay for the cabled/sat option. Forget about viewers outside the US... That's where goatd comes in, I guess...
exelius 11y ago
Video is a done deal. Most cable companies lose money on their video packages anyway; they're a loss-leader for broadband subs at this point. In 5 years, nobody will be talking about the video business. And the FCC very well should give more power to cable companies, because the cable companies are at a huge disadvantage relative to the big national telcos (aka AT&T and Verizon). AT&T and Verizon are working together to ensure none of the cable companies becomes a national player capable of threatening them. The old Bells are still much, much larger than any of the cable providers, so they can throw their weight around.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > Video is a done deal. Most cable companies lose money on their video packages anyway; they're a loss-leader for broadband subs at this point. In 5 years, nobody will be talking about the video business. If that was the case, cable companies would stop selling me the TV package when I already pay the maximum amount for internet they offer in my area. Yet, somehow, they are always willing to sell me cable TV with free HBO for 12 months and a $50 gift card for $19.99/month.
  - exelius 11y ago
    Because there are still sales organizations within these companies whose bonuses are based on driving video revenue. It takes a while for a large company to unroll those organizations/incentives/etc. As it is, the primary customers of their video products are older adults. But long-term, video is a non-issue. If prices don't come down, the cable providers will move to a la carte. There's just too much content available online via YouTube, Netflix, etc. It will still be a product, but it will be IP-only, cheaper, and offer more granular video packages.
Someone1234 11y ago
These changes don't sound like they're really addressing the core problem. Here's how things currently work: - Broadcaster sets rates. - Cable company negotiates and eventually settles (with or without blackouts). - Cable company bundles these rates with other rates from other channels and passes it on to the consumer. - Cable company gets the backlash from the consumer as a result of rate hikes. So as you can likely tell, broadcasters have too much power, because cable companies will ultimately be blamed either for blackouts (failed negotiations) OR for rate hikes. So it puts them in a lose/lose situation. Instead what cable should be doing is: - Unbundle channels entirely. - Pass on rate increases to the consumer for that specific channel. - Itemise how much of what you pay goes to the broadcaster Vs. the cable company - Alternatively the cable company could charge $0 on the channels themselves (100% broadcaster) and charge a "delivery fee" or "service fee" on the entire account. This way the broadcaster gets blamed for the rate hikes directly from consumers, and consumers now have more power to drop certain channels if they feel the value they receive is lower than the cost they pay (e.g. $5/month for Trutv). That's what the FCC should be doing.
- 300bps 11y ago
  Unfortunately it is the content providers that have forced bundling onto the cable providers. Verizon FIOS was the first major cable provider though to successfully implement unbundling. As you said, the FCC would do well to restrict forced bundling. http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/media/verizon-fios/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/media/verizon-fios/
  - isomorphic 11y ago
    While your point about content providers is well-seen, let's be clear about what we mean by "unbundling." I think the consumer expectation is true a-la-carte, i.e., channel-level granularity in package choice. What Verizon has implemented is packages of bundles of channels, plus a required minimum base package. While this is progress, it is not real a-la-carte. Personally, the add-on fees and mandatory equipment rental accounted for 50% of the nominal price of my FiOS TV bill. Packages would have barely dented this. Therefore I canceled FiOS TV earlier this year. By the time the cable providers actually implement a-la-carte, no one under the age of 40 will be subscribing.
phkahler 11y ago
I don't think anyone should have to pay anything for a broadcast signal within the broadcast area. I mean, it's free to anyone with an antenna already. I'm not sure, but I get the impression that businesses are not allowed to have a TV showing local channels based on the number of them that show a degraded signal from cable when they could just put up an antenna and get HD. OTOH there is some damage done by bundling local channels onto cable - they now have to compete with non-local stuff so the viewership will be lower.
Osiris 11y ago
The core problem is the entire idea of timeslotted television content. Content is only available on a certain channel at a certain time of day. What cable companies should be doing is acquiring the rights to broadcast CONTENT. Cable really should just become a massive collection of on-demand content plus live events (think sports). The whole idea of television by timeslot is archaic.
gwbas1c 11y ago
Just push it towards the internet. Encourage broadcasters to directly-market. Now that Android TV is a thing, this can quickly become very user-friendly.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  Why does Android TV matter? Unless you want to watch a show as soon as you possibly can, most content has been available for day-after viewing from Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, Xbox Video, etc etc etc for years.
rconti 11y ago
From the chart, retransmission fees have gone from $0.2bn to $8.6bn (in 2018, so, a projection) Absolutely, retransmission fees are growing faster than anything else. But Basic Cable net fees have gone from 16.2 to 46.9bn. Fees paid to RSNs (sports?) have (will have?) gone from 2.7 to 7.8bn. $35.8bn change for "cable stuff" vs $8.4bn change for "local stuff". So, yeah, local broadcasters are rolling in it, but the dollar impact on your bill is from cable+sports programming. (albeit likely on a smaller per-channel basis).
- exelius 11y ago
  Absolutely true. The cable companies are about to revolt -- what happens if Comcast says "Fine, we're just giving everyone Netflix + Hulu Plus subscriptions and a Roku box, so ESPN and the RSNs can fuck off; subscribe to MLB/NFL/NHL's streaming packages if you want to."?
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    Never gonna happen. * Comcast makes millions, if not billions a year off of equipment rental fees. $8/mo for a gateway and $12/mo for an HD box (at minimum) for cheap, crappy equipment. * Streaming video has gotten good, but streaming live video is still a tough nut to crack. You can't pre-buffer things that haven't happened yet (said by someone who's used the NHL's offering for the past few years). * Sports are keeping cable TV alive. NBCSN prints money for Comcast, and they pay the NHL a ton of money for that content, and the NHL has one of the smaller North American TV deals (due to demographics, regional popularity, and the weak Canadian dollar).
    - CoolgyFurlough 11y ago
      As somebody whose main source of entertainment is Twitch.tv I can tell you that streaming live video would be much better if these very same cable companies would get their heads out of their asses and make their Internet services more reliable. The speeds you get from a cable connection are more than enough to stream live HD video, the infrastructure is just terrible in a lot of cases.
graycat 11y ago
Easier solution: Turn the TV to face the wall and unplug it from the cable company. Net, the OP is about a big battle over something next to worthless. My ISP in effect pays me to accept their "basic* TV service -- I get Internet access and phone with TV for less than without TV. Well, I hadn't watched any TV for years. I tried a few months ago to watch the NBA playoffs, but my basic service didn't offer that. But for the 2016 elections, I just signed up for an upgrade. But, I'm not very happy with the upgrade -- it's a waste of time and money. Even for the elections, I can get what I want, e.g., transcripts, off the Internet. So, I suspect in another week or so I will cancel the upgrade. Movies? Okay, DVDs or YouTube. How anything could be as bad as TV is a bit beyond me.

80 points by GeorgeOrr 11y ago

I think they should just go a-la-carte on broadcast channels. My mother-in-law lives in a small city where she can pick up the big networks + PBS and some minor networks (CW, ion) with just rabbit ears. With an $80 antenna, I get 11 channels from a city that is 50 miles away. All I had to do is nail a bracket onto the edge of my roof. I am missing CBS and ABC, but I am planning to fill those in with a VHF antenna that points to another city. The difference in picture quality between the HD broadcast vs the compressed "HD" offered by TWC is night and day. It seems to me there is no value in getting a degraded copy of local broadcast TV on cable, so you should be able to opt out of it, or maybe just get broadcast stations that don't come in with your antenna.

brandonmenc 11y ago
> I think they should just go a-la-carte on broadcast channels. My understanding is that the cable companies want to do this, but a tangled web of long-term agreements to carry channels have painted them into a corner.
- PaulHoule 11y ago
  Well, if the broadcasters get $ for cable subscriptions, broadcasters have a reason to want you to subscribe to cable. Also, the cable companies really don't want you to get into the OTA habit, since OTA has many of the things you want linear TV for and goes together with OTT like peanut butter and jelly. Do people think there is something ritually unclean about getting OTA television? I know that a lot of people that I talk to about my OTA setup seem to think I am doing something illegal.
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    Cable companies are more than happy to have you go OTA+OTT. They make far higher margins on their Internet offerings than on video.
- marincounty 11y ago
  They probally would like to go a-la-carte, and charge a fortune for each channel? I sometimes think it was a mistake to let cable companies put their cables up, with these long term agreements? Agreements that always seem to favor cable companies? I've never understood these franchise agreements. I always thought if you allow one company put up their wires, you should allow multiple companies the right to use the same utility pole to put up their equipment. If said company goes bankrupt--the municipality/county would own those wires/fibers, and could sell, or lease to the next company? Or, just rip them off the poles? I'm kinda at the point where if I chief; I would rip out all the cable companies wires? I would let any company come in and put up new cables, but the service would need to be completely free. They would make money on advertising? The advertising couldn't get much worse? (The only good thing I heard about cable companies is in CA; there is a bill up for consideration requiring all monthly fees for cable boxes, and modems be eliminated. Or, something along those lines?)
dublinben 11y ago
You can stop paying for freely broadcast networks, and only pay for cable channels with a service like Sling TV. They've managed to work out the right deals to get basic cable, including ESPN, into a $20/mo package. The more people who start doing this, the less power broadcasters will have over distributors (cable, IPTV, etc.).
MichaelApproved 11y ago
> With an $80 antenna, I get 11 channels from a city that is 50 miles away. All I had to do is nail a bracket onto the edge of my roof. > I am missing CBS and ABC, but I am planning to fill those in with a VHF antenna that points to another city. > It seems to me there is no value in getting a degraded copy of local broadcast TV on cable So, you spent $80 and had to climb onto the roof to install it. You have existing knowledge about what antenna to purchase. You know you need a VHF antenna to get other channels. You know where to purchase this stuff. All of that isn't existing knowledge to the general public and climbing onto a room isn't a general skill-set. There is definite value in a cable guy coming in and setting everything up for you.
- PaulHoule 11y ago
  Unless you stay home to wait for the cable guy and he never shows up...
- dhimes 11y ago
  Actually, we're only a generation away from when people did exactly that. My father bought his TV antenna, as did everyone else I knew. Installed it an the roof (a big, unwieldy thing), stood there and turned it's direction while I called up when the picture was best. So, it's not that far-fetched.

tired_man 11y ago

Broadcast is a moot point for anyone with a computer and at least a DSL connection. I'm done with instant broadcast by any method if it's supported with commercials. I have little time free to watch TV. It's too valuable to waste 15-20 minutes out of every hour on commercials.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Except when it's not a moot point. My wife likes to watch soccer when it's on. We have basic cable, so we don't have ESPN. It's either watch using an antenna attached to our TV, watch using low def blurry crap the cable company shows or use some virus-laden app to watch it with a computer.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  > using low def blurry crap the cable company shows This drives me nuts. They strip program information, they downgrade the signal, they include a hundred or so music channels that nobody wants, they broadcast blank channels, and the periodically re-arrange the channels (or change/upgrade/downgrade the basic plan). I can't go to my grandmother's house without having to spend an hour or so to re-do all of her channels on her TV sets; and then try to explain to a 90-yr old why the channels are different.
  - tunap 11y ago
    Seriously, the SD on DTV is bad. Add to that the sport broadcasters using the 'not-so' latest greatest equipment(Canuck NHL teams, the worst) and it looks like you time-warped back to watching TV in the '70s.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    LOL. Is there a real reason for them to need to rearrange the channels? I don't get it.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

wnevets 11y ago

Alot of people who grew up with cable don't even realize broadcast stations exist. I've had to explain to multiple people that you dont need cable to get abc, nbc, etc.

ergothus 11y ago
...and yet, if you want to watch, say, the Superbowl online, you do need cable.
- 300bps 11y ago
  NBC streamed it to anyone for free on their website: http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/nbc-will-live-stream-the-super-bowl-for-free/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/nbc-will-live-stream-the-su...
  - tunap 11y ago
    I am unsure of terms for the SuperBowl, but if I want to watch Motocross online I have hoops to jump through to prove I pay for an NBC channel in my cable/sat packege. I do not have a cable/sat package, so therefore I cannot watch on their website.
    - thaas53 11y ago
      You can watch all the motos here: http://www.promotocross.com/mx/video http://www.promotocross.com/mx/video Maybe not live but I watched both 450 Unadilla motos the following Sunday evening. I have no cable/sat package.
      - tunap 11y ago
        Yup, MX has been offering post race viewing since 2012(AFAIK). Been waiting for SX to follow suit. Original point stands, broadcaster streaming offerings are worthless to uncabled viewers if they cannot prove they pay for the cabled/sat option. Forget about viewers outside the US... That's where goatd comes in, I guess...

exelius 11y ago

Video is a done deal. Most cable companies lose money on their video packages anyway; they're a loss-leader for broadband subs at this point. In 5 years, nobody will be talking about the video business. And the FCC very well should give more power to cable companies, because the cable companies are at a huge disadvantage relative to the big national telcos (aka AT&T and Verizon). AT&T and Verizon are working together to ensure none of the cable companies becomes a national player capable of threatening them. The old Bells are still much, much larger than any of the cable providers, so they can throw their weight around.

fweespeech 11y ago
> Video is a done deal. Most cable companies lose money on their video packages anyway; they're a loss-leader for broadband subs at this point. In 5 years, nobody will be talking about the video business. If that was the case, cable companies would stop selling me the TV package when I already pay the maximum amount for internet they offer in my area. Yet, somehow, they are always willing to sell me cable TV with free HBO for 12 months and a $50 gift card for $19.99/month.
- exelius 11y ago
  Because there are still sales organizations within these companies whose bonuses are based on driving video revenue. It takes a while for a large company to unroll those organizations/incentives/etc. As it is, the primary customers of their video products are older adults. But long-term, video is a non-issue. If prices don't come down, the cable providers will move to a la carte. There's just too much content available online via YouTube, Netflix, etc. It will still be a product, but it will be IP-only, cheaper, and offer more granular video packages.

Someone1234 11y ago

These changes don't sound like they're really addressing the core problem. Here's how things currently work: - Broadcaster sets rates. - Cable company negotiates and eventually settles (with or without blackouts). - Cable company bundles these rates with other rates from other channels and passes it on to the consumer. - Cable company gets the backlash from the consumer as a result of rate hikes. So as you can likely tell, broadcasters have too much power, because cable companies will ultimately be blamed either for blackouts (failed negotiations) OR for rate hikes. So it puts them in a lose/lose situation. Instead what cable should be doing is: - Unbundle channels entirely. - Pass on rate increases to the consumer for that specific channel. - Itemise how much of what you pay goes to the broadcaster Vs. the cable company - Alternatively the cable company could charge $0 on the channels themselves (100% broadcaster) and charge a "delivery fee" or "service fee" on the entire account. This way the broadcaster gets blamed for the rate hikes directly from consumers, and consumers now have more power to drop certain channels if they feel the value they receive is lower than the cost they pay (e.g. $5/month for Trutv). That's what the FCC should be doing.

300bps 11y ago
Unfortunately it is the content providers that have forced bundling onto the cable providers. Verizon FIOS was the first major cable provider though to successfully implement unbundling. As you said, the FCC would do well to restrict forced bundling. http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/media/verizon-fios/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/media/verizon-fios/
- isomorphic 11y ago
  While your point about content providers is well-seen, let's be clear about what we mean by "unbundling." I think the consumer expectation is true a-la-carte, i.e., channel-level granularity in package choice. What Verizon has implemented is packages of bundles of channels, plus a required minimum base package. While this is progress, it is not real a-la-carte. Personally, the add-on fees and mandatory equipment rental accounted for 50% of the nominal price of my FiOS TV bill. Packages would have barely dented this. Therefore I canceled FiOS TV earlier this year. By the time the cable providers actually implement a-la-carte, no one under the age of 40 will be subscribing.

phkahler 11y ago

I don't think anyone should have to pay anything for a broadcast signal within the broadcast area. I mean, it's free to anyone with an antenna already. I'm not sure, but I get the impression that businesses are not allowed to have a TV showing local channels based on the number of them that show a degraded signal from cable when they could just put up an antenna and get HD. OTOH there is some damage done by bundling local channels onto cable - they now have to compete with non-local stuff so the viewership will be lower.

Osiris 11y ago

The core problem is the entire idea of timeslotted television content. Content is only available on a certain channel at a certain time of day. What cable companies should be doing is acquiring the rights to broadcast CONTENT. Cable really should just become a massive collection of on-demand content plus live events (think sports). The whole idea of television by timeslot is archaic.

gwbas1c 11y ago

Just push it towards the internet. Encourage broadcasters to directly-market. Now that Android TV is a thing, this can quickly become very user-friendly.

ascagnel_ 11y ago
Why does Android TV matter? Unless you want to watch a show as soon as you possibly can, most content has been available for day-after viewing from Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, Xbox Video, etc etc etc for years.

rconti 11y ago

From the chart, retransmission fees have gone from $0.2bn to $8.6bn (in 2018, so, a projection) Absolutely, retransmission fees are growing faster than anything else. But Basic Cable net fees have gone from 16.2 to 46.9bn. Fees paid to RSNs (sports?) have (will have?) gone from 2.7 to 7.8bn. $35.8bn change for "cable stuff" vs $8.4bn change for "local stuff". So, yeah, local broadcasters are rolling in it, but the dollar impact on your bill is from cable+sports programming. (albeit likely on a smaller per-channel basis).

exelius 11y ago
Absolutely true. The cable companies are about to revolt -- what happens if Comcast says "Fine, we're just giving everyone Netflix + Hulu Plus subscriptions and a Roku box, so ESPN and the RSNs can fuck off; subscribe to MLB/NFL/NHL's streaming packages if you want to."?
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  Never gonna happen. * Comcast makes millions, if not billions a year off of equipment rental fees. $8/mo for a gateway and $12/mo for an HD box (at minimum) for cheap, crappy equipment. * Streaming video has gotten good, but streaming live video is still a tough nut to crack. You can't pre-buffer things that haven't happened yet (said by someone who's used the NHL's offering for the past few years). * Sports are keeping cable TV alive. NBCSN prints money for Comcast, and they pay the NHL a ton of money for that content, and the NHL has one of the smaller North American TV deals (due to demographics, regional popularity, and the weak Canadian dollar).
  - CoolgyFurlough 11y ago
    As somebody whose main source of entertainment is Twitch.tv I can tell you that streaming live video would be much better if these very same cable companies would get their heads out of their asses and make their Internet services more reliable. The speeds you get from a cable connection are more than enough to stream live HD video, the infrastructure is just terrible in a lot of cases.

graycat 11y ago

Easier solution: Turn the TV to face the wall and unplug it from the cable company. Net, the OP is about a big battle over something next to worthless. My ISP in effect pays me to accept their "basic* TV service -- I get Internet access and phone with TV for less than without TV. Well, I hadn't watched any TV for years. I tried a few months ago to watch the NBA playoffs, but my basic service didn't offer that. But for the 2016 elections, I just signed up for an upgrade. But, I'm not very happy with the upgrade -- it's a waste of time and money. Even for the elections, I can get what I want, e.g., transcripts, off the Internet. So, I suspect in another week or so I will cancel the upgrade. Movies? Okay, DVDs or YouTube. How anything could be as bad as TV is a bit beyond me.