4 ms·

True, the edge case of "I want TV but not internet" users are not in a great place to access streaming content. They still have all their existing cable content

True, the edge case of "I want TV but not internet" users are not in a great place to access streaming content. They still have all their existing cable content, though, at least? And in 2001, good chance they were already paying for internet back then too. I don't think it's realistic to assume "no internet" is a standard default these days, though, regardless of if/how you watch TV.

HWR_14 5y ago
It's not "no internet". It's "low bandwidth" internet. If it wasn't for streaming or downloading OS updates, would most people need fast internet?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Most people working from home (or remote schooling, even occasionally) would need more than low bandwidth internet.
- majormajor 5y ago
  What do you mean by low bandwidth? 56K dialup? 1.5Mbps DSL? 10Mbit? Streaming only was able to take off because broadband (back then this wouldn't even have been that much, >~2Mbps) was already widespread. So I'd say yes, nobody liked waiting for slow connections.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Yes? HD video calls and backing up your personal media. Even an old person can benefit from high upload being able to do a remote doctor visit with an HD camera.
_jal 5y ago
I'm the opposite. I want "internet but not TV". If you're in Comcast land, you'll pay for cable either way. > I don't think it's realistic to assume "no internet" is a standard default these days About 1 in 6 US households has no internet access, nowhere near a small enough number to start rolling up alternatives.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  Do you have more details or a source on this? I'm wondering if the 1 in 6 is no centralized household internet, or no access whatsoever e.g. via a smartphone with a data plan.
  - _jal 5y ago
    The info I'm thinking of came from a Pew report that went around work, I'm not finding that on the public internet. There is this, which comes up with a similar number: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-united-states-of-america https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-united-states-... That also claims: "The number of mobile connections in the United States of America in January 2020 was equivalent to 107% of the total population." I'm not sure how to disaggregate that to humans. I do personally have more than one device with a data plan, although I'm not sure how typical that is.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Not sure I understand. I pay Comcast for Internet but dropped both cable TV and landline a couple years ago and cut the bill in about half.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  That's not my experience with decades of different Comcast subscriptions in one city.

HWR_14 5y ago

It's not "no internet". It's "low bandwidth" internet. If it wasn't for streaming or downloading OS updates, would most people need fast internet?

sokoloff 5y ago
Most people working from home (or remote schooling, even occasionally) would need more than low bandwidth internet.
majormajor 5y ago
What do you mean by low bandwidth? 56K dialup? 1.5Mbps DSL? 10Mbit? Streaming only was able to take off because broadband (back then this wouldn't even have been that much, >~2Mbps) was already widespread. So I'd say yes, nobody liked waiting for slow connections.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Yes? HD video calls and backing up your personal media. Even an old person can benefit from high upload being able to do a remote doctor visit with an HD camera.

_jal 5y ago

I'm the opposite. I want "internet but not TV". If you're in Comcast land, you'll pay for cable either way. > I don't think it's realistic to assume "no internet" is a standard default these days About 1 in 6 US households has no internet access, nowhere near a small enough number to start rolling up alternatives.

margalabargala 5y ago
Do you have more details or a source on this? I'm wondering if the 1 in 6 is no centralized household internet, or no access whatsoever e.g. via a smartphone with a data plan.
- _jal 5y ago
  The info I'm thinking of came from a Pew report that went around work, I'm not finding that on the public internet. There is this, which comes up with a similar number: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-united-states-of-america https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-united-states-... That also claims: "The number of mobile connections in the United States of America in January 2020 was equivalent to 107% of the total population." I'm not sure how to disaggregate that to humans. I do personally have more than one device with a data plan, although I'm not sure how typical that is.
ghaff 5y ago
Not sure I understand. I pay Comcast for Internet but dropped both cable TV and landline a couple years ago and cut the bill in about half.
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
That's not my experience with decades of different Comcast subscriptions in one city.