4 ms·

Internet TV and The Death of Cable TV, really

22 points by thiele 16y ago

dkokelley 16y ago
Anecdotally: I never plan on subscribing to any traditional TV service (Cable, Satellite, etc). I can watch all of my shows online, between Hulu and Netflix. Also, I never plan on getting a traditional landline, as my cell phone coupled with Skype and Google Voice does the job quite nicely. The only way I will get either of the two above mentioned services is if it's bundled inexpensively in a home data package (ie. Verizon FiOS or AT&T Uverse), because bandwidth is all that I really want/need.
- metageek 16y ago
  Bandwidth is all I really want, too, but I don't have good options for it. I'm about 15,000 feet from my CO, so the DSL I used to have was limited to 384kbps, and would flake out when it's hot. Comcast provides something like 14Mbps, and is more reliable than DSL, but still not reliable enough for me to trust their phone service. (I have kids; if I call 911, I want to be sure I'll get through.) I would consider getting unbundled IP from Comcast if it were available at a reasonable price, but it isn't, so I keep paying the $13.95/mo for my statutory minimum cable (just the stuff I could get over the air). I sometimes get calls from Comcast, advertising their voice service. One time I explained I needed something reliable; they told me they had 93% reliability. And they seemed to think this was a good thing.
  - dkokelley 16y ago
    What are you using for a phone right now? I have our local sheriff's station in my phone book, so I use that instead of 911.
    - metageek 16y ago
      We mostly use our cellphones, but we also have the cheapest POTS plan we can get.
w1ntermute 16y ago
The key caveat is buried in one sentence in the second-to-last paragraph: > I know a lot of folks who keep cable for live sports, but cable surviving as a sports-only service is hard to fathom. As long as sports are not available live anywhere else, cable will continue to rule. Because of the bundle packages people are forced to buy, they'll keep buying everything else as well.
- techsupporter 16y ago
  Yep. Since MLB won't let customers subscribe to in-market games without being tied to a cable provider (shocking?), as long as my local team is primarily on cable[1], I'll be a cable subscriber. 1- They show approximately 30 games on broadcast TV, but many observers expect that to disappear with the next contract renewal.
  - sp332 16y ago
    So, you can watch MLB over IP with a Roku (http://www.roku.com/mlb-partner http://www.roku.com/mlb-partner), but in order to sign up for local games, you have to have a cable contract anyway?
    - techsupporter 16y ago
      Some teams (notably the Yankees, but I think the Athletics as well) have made deals with MLB where in-market streaming is allowed. This typically means you sign in to MLB.tv using credentials from your cable provider, but don't pay extra or pay a smaller fee than the normal MLB.tv rate. Otherwise, MLB.tv is solely for viewing out-of-market games (i.e. watching the Rangers in Ohio).
- chaosmachine 16y ago
  Here in Canada, hockey (the only sport that really matters) is broadcast live in HD on the CBC's website. The quality is not perfect, but it gets better every year. Our tax dollars at work. :)
  - 16y ago
jsz0 16y ago
Cable isn't totally out of the loop on IP. I've seen some demos of Cisco's IPTV solution for cable operators (vDoc) and it's a really good solution. I would expect to see it start replacing a lot of traditional linear video services within 3-5 years. So what will most likely happen is Comcast Cable TV will become another IPTV video service delivered via your cable modem. This will give the providers an opportunity to continue bundling packages in a mostly anti-competitive way. So for example data service + Comcast IPTV is $100/month but data service alone without Comcast IPTV is $90/month. Part of this strategy includes data caps. Comcast IPTV won't count against your 250GB/month in the same way PacketCable voice traffic doesn't count against your cap today. This won't kill off other IPTV solutions entirely but cable operators are going to have a big competitive advantage.
mark_l_watson 16y ago
Satellite services are also feeling the heat: I was surprised to get a call from Directv a few nights ago offering a slight reduction in cost and 6 months of "everything free." My wife has been digging getting all of the channels but since we are both heavy Netflix streaming customers, we may drop Directv in a few years when all programs are available for a reasonable fee on the Internet but we are in no hurry because Directv does offer a great product. Off topic but: it is really important that new entertainment business models do not freeze out small content producers. I want more options, not fewer, and I would hope that a pay as you watch (or with commercials) Internet option will help small producers thrive.
jay_kyburz 16y ago
Does anybody know of good articles that describe how new TV content is paid for and how this is linked to pay TV subscriptions. Are Google, Apple and Netflix going to have to go into the business of making new content if they run the traditional networks out of business?
jawngee 16y ago
I've been cable free for nearly a year now. Not only do I find myself spending less time zoning out in front of the faint glowing glory of my TV, when I do, I'm generally watching stuff that is more ... substantial? than I was before. I get Netflix on my 360. I have a heavily modded mac mini serving up Plex (content via RapidShare and Usenet) and Hulu. I do VOD-style on both the 360 and PS3 for newer movies. iTunes for TV show subs. I save about $100 a month.
jcromartie 16y ago
Every single one of my close friends is done with broadcast/cable/satellite.
dinkumthinkum 16y ago
Yeah, right. I don't see it happening. The idea of getting rid of all cable is very popular with this kind of crowd, as well as the "Man cannot stop telling people he doesn't watch TV" crowd (of Onion fame) but in reality it's just not really there yet and I'm not sure about the idea of killing off cable is really coming any time soon.

22 points by thiele 16y ago

Anecdotally: I never plan on subscribing to any traditional TV service (Cable, Satellite, etc). I can watch all of my shows online, between Hulu and Netflix. Also, I never plan on getting a traditional landline, as my cell phone coupled with Skype and Google Voice does the job quite nicely. The only way I will get either of the two above mentioned services is if it's bundled inexpensively in a home data package (ie. Verizon FiOS or AT&T Uverse), because bandwidth is all that I really want/need.

metageek 16y ago
Bandwidth is all I really want, too, but I don't have good options for it. I'm about 15,000 feet from my CO, so the DSL I used to have was limited to 384kbps, and would flake out when it's hot. Comcast provides something like 14Mbps, and is more reliable than DSL, but still not reliable enough for me to trust their phone service. (I have kids; if I call 911, I want to be sure I'll get through.) I would consider getting unbundled IP from Comcast if it were available at a reasonable price, but it isn't, so I keep paying the $13.95/mo for my statutory minimum cable (just the stuff I could get over the air). I sometimes get calls from Comcast, advertising their voice service. One time I explained I needed something reliable; they told me they had 93% reliability. And they seemed to think this was a good thing.
- dkokelley 16y ago
  What are you using for a phone right now? I have our local sheriff's station in my phone book, so I use that instead of 911.
  - metageek 16y ago
    We mostly use our cellphones, but we also have the cheapest POTS plan we can get.

w1ntermute 16y ago

The key caveat is buried in one sentence in the second-to-last paragraph: > I know a lot of folks who keep cable for live sports, but cable surviving as a sports-only service is hard to fathom. As long as sports are not available live anywhere else, cable will continue to rule. Because of the bundle packages people are forced to buy, they'll keep buying everything else as well.

techsupporter 16y ago
Yep. Since MLB won't let customers subscribe to in-market games without being tied to a cable provider (shocking?), as long as my local team is primarily on cable[1], I'll be a cable subscriber. 1- They show approximately 30 games on broadcast TV, but many observers expect that to disappear with the next contract renewal.
- sp332 16y ago
  So, you can watch MLB over IP with a Roku (http://www.roku.com/mlb-partner http://www.roku.com/mlb-partner), but in order to sign up for local games, you have to have a cable contract anyway?
  - techsupporter 16y ago
    Some teams (notably the Yankees, but I think the Athletics as well) have made deals with MLB where in-market streaming is allowed. This typically means you sign in to MLB.tv using credentials from your cable provider, but don't pay extra or pay a smaller fee than the normal MLB.tv rate. Otherwise, MLB.tv is solely for viewing out-of-market games (i.e. watching the Rangers in Ohio).
chaosmachine 16y ago
Here in Canada, hockey (the only sport that really matters) is broadcast live in HD on the CBC's website. The quality is not perfect, but it gets better every year. Our tax dollars at work. :)
- 16y ago

jsz0 16y ago

Cable isn't totally out of the loop on IP. I've seen some demos of Cisco's IPTV solution for cable operators (vDoc) and it's a really good solution. I would expect to see it start replacing a lot of traditional linear video services within 3-5 years. So what will most likely happen is Comcast Cable TV will become another IPTV video service delivered via your cable modem. This will give the providers an opportunity to continue bundling packages in a mostly anti-competitive way. So for example data service + Comcast IPTV is $100/month but data service alone without Comcast IPTV is $90/month. Part of this strategy includes data caps. Comcast IPTV won't count against your 250GB/month in the same way PacketCable voice traffic doesn't count against your cap today. This won't kill off other IPTV solutions entirely but cable operators are going to have a big competitive advantage.

mark_l_watson 16y ago

Satellite services are also feeling the heat: I was surprised to get a call from Directv a few nights ago offering a slight reduction in cost and 6 months of "everything free." My wife has been digging getting all of the channels but since we are both heavy Netflix streaming customers, we may drop Directv in a few years when all programs are available for a reasonable fee on the Internet but we are in no hurry because Directv does offer a great product. Off topic but: it is really important that new entertainment business models do not freeze out small content producers. I want more options, not fewer, and I would hope that a pay as you watch (or with commercials) Internet option will help small producers thrive.

jay_kyburz 16y ago

Does anybody know of good articles that describe how new TV content is paid for and how this is linked to pay TV subscriptions. Are Google, Apple and Netflix going to have to go into the business of making new content if they run the traditional networks out of business?

jawngee 16y ago

I've been cable free for nearly a year now. Not only do I find myself spending less time zoning out in front of the faint glowing glory of my TV, when I do, I'm generally watching stuff that is more ... substantial? than I was before. I get Netflix on my 360. I have a heavily modded mac mini serving up Plex (content via RapidShare and Usenet) and Hulu. I do VOD-style on both the 360 and PS3 for newer movies. iTunes for TV show subs. I save about $100 a month.

jcromartie 16y ago

Every single one of my close friends is done with broadcast/cable/satellite.

dinkumthinkum 16y ago

Yeah, right. I don't see it happening. The idea of getting rid of all cable is very popular with this kind of crowd, as well as the "Man cannot stop telling people he doesn't watch TV" crowd (of Onion fame) but in reality it's just not really there yet and I'm not sure about the idea of killing off cable is really coming any time soon.