Slashdot Mirror
Why Internet Television Isn't Quite Ready To Save Us From Cable TV
smaxp writes "It's no surprise that few people love their pay TV providers. In May, Variety reported that the American Consumer Satisfaction Index ranked cable television providers last in all consumer categories. Pent up frustration with cable and satellite TV providers fuels a steady buzz that Amazon, Apple, Google and Netflix will disrupt TV. These new entrants promise to offer variability in pricing and greater choice fueling notions that Americans have officially cut their proverbial cords. But true disruption is wishful thinking. Data from the PricewaterhouseCooper’s (PwC) global entertainment and media outlook for 2013-2017 doesn’t support a disruptive market scenario. Incumbent cable and satellite pay TV providers and over-the-top (OTT) challengers such as Amazon and Netflix are both forecasted to grow. OTT TV has only reinvented a single part of the TV business, streaming archival movie and television content over the internet replacing physical DVDs and time-shifted DVR replay of TV programs. To displace incumbents, OTT TV has to continue to change TV business models in ways that appeal to consumers and attract content owners. "
Is anyone surprised?
the problem is that the ppl who make the television all have deals with specific channels, and those channels have deals with the providers. none of the online sites are willing to deal with this kind of structure, and most are smart enough to realize that everyone who watches shit online already has a site where they watch them for free without ads
Admittedly, I have no idea who got voted off the island, but I'm coping pretty well. I can watch all the shows I care about on streaming, when I want, with no ads. Sure, people will continue to pay for cable for years to come, out of habit, but it's a business model that's failing to deliver value to new customers, so the population that consumes it will age out over time even if the streaming services don't change anything.
Meanwhile, big cable is doing everything they legally can to prevent the streaming providers from delivering good service. And yet streaming providers are attracting plenty of customers, and plenty of people are cutting the cable. Why the hurry?
BTW, can we please stop calling it "over the top?" That implies something about the business model that's total nonsense: the idea that IP service is a side business, and cable is the real business. Where did this term come from, anyway?
doesn't like internet TV. It's customers are the big Network and TV cable companies!
I haven't paid for TV in years. I just pirate everything that I can't find on Netflix. Not because I don't want to pay for something, or because I'm some kind of cheap ass looking to save a few bucks. I simply don't like paying $100+ a month to watch a few TV shows a week, which of course are laden with commercials. Unfortunately, this will always be an underground "war" until either the knowledge on how to safely pirate shows is commonplace, or there becomes actual competition in cable providers.
I'm content with things the way they are now, however. I watch what I want, when I want, and how I want, for either free or cheap. The ball is in their court now.
For me, the only bottleneck is (still) bandwidth. When actual broadband connections get to every household, which means they are cheap enough and all companies invest on HD streaming, there will be no coming back. But the quality of many streaming services nowadays is really unacceptable.
OTA digital subchannels are what saved me from cable. Between and DIY and educational shows on 3 PBS channels, and the old reruns on various commercial "retro" subchannels, I'm now getting much better programming than the "reality" crap played 24/7 on the burned out carcasses of what used to be decent cable channels. Best of all, it's free.
Of course OTT won't disrupt the traditional TV models just yet. Netflix is definitely moving in that direction, though, by producing original series. As that segment of original programming grows, they're poised to disrupt the traditional cable model, instead of the video rental model they already disrupted twice (once with mailed DVDs, again with streaming).
Comcast caps it's HSI so people don't cut out the TV side and go on line only also they own parts of some local RSN's and other sports channels.
I pirate because the uploaders provide an infinitely better service than the cable companies or even Hulu/Netflix etc. I get DRM/region free ad-free files that work on any device, at great resolutions and quality, barely minutes after the episode has aired. Why the hell would I go back to their terrible services when that option is open to me? Now yes i'm not paying for the content, but often that's not an option anyway, (see The Oatmeal's comic on trying to buy Game of Thrones online). As has been voiced a million times, if these companies fired all their old idiot suits and brought out a 'Steam for movies/tv' that had all the added value that Steam brings it would take off like a rocket.
Most people get it from a cable company. And those companies will do whatever it takes to throw a wrench into the works of their competition. Apple and Netflix haven't raised the ire of the last mile monopoly yet. However Google has. And I'm starting to see anything 'Google, including some of their analytics mysteriously being throttled by the incumbents. Until the stranglehold on the last mile can be broken and broadband providers are classified as common carriers, nobody does business in the turf they consider to be theirs.
That's a nice little streaming video service ya' got there, buddy. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Ha, ha, ha.
Have gnu, will travel.
at least the home teams are blacked out on MLB and NBA. and they cost a lot. $150 for baseball, $180 for basketball. no football yet on streaming.
ESPN streams live games but you have to pay for TV
in the end pay TV is not that bad. time warner and comcast have packages that start at $80 for internet and TV
time warner is worse because it is supported by less streaming services like Disney Jr, Bravo and Epix
internet by itself is $50. by the time you pay for netflix, hulu, any a la carte TV shows via itunes, the electric bill to leave your computer on 24x7 to run bit torrent all day it adds up
The only complaint I usually hear about is the cost of cable tv. All the providers have to do is lower the cost of the packages and people will stop dropping them in leu of streaming packages. The only reason I have cable TV is because comcast actually gave me a $2 discout to have tv and internet instead of just internet. I had to ask her if this was the case and she assured me that I would pay $63 for internet and tv or $65 for just internet. Sure I only get local channels and OnDemand but I actually save money? If they can do this then they can lower the cost of their other packages.
so the population that [subscribes to multichannel pay television] will age out over time even if the streaming services don't change anything.
Will people really "age out" of following the major professional and collegiate sport leagues over time? I was under the impression that sport fandom tended to be something that was passed down from generation to generation.
I still use sickbread, I tried cablecard and recording that way far to much was block off unless I went with MS lock in. I still have cable it goes nowhere because the bundle is cheaper that the internet by itself.
No sir I dont like it.
Some people who live outside cable's service area stick with satellite TV because satellite Internet has a 10 GB/mo cap. Even at 1 Mbps, that's only about 11 hours a month if half the cap is used for streaming.
My son is staying with us for a few months and has set up Netflix on our main dvd player, so I've recently had a chance to try it out for a while, but almost any time that I think of an old movie I'd really like to see that I don't have the DVD for already, I find it's never actually available on Netflix anyways. If Netflix carried stuff that I actually cared about, I'd probably get it myself when my son moves out, but it doesn't. So.... nope.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Contrary to all the evidence, "their data doesn't support".. mKay
if I feel like it I can just buy a season of a show for $14.
Can you buy a season of, say, Monday Night Football or The Rachel Maddow Show for that much?
I cut the cord 5 years ago. 3 years ago i set up my parents, and my wifes parents, with a roku box, a netflix account, a torrent client with a proxy already configured and a bookmark for EZTV and the bay. Next week, i'm headed out to set up my 80 year old grandmother with a roku and anetflix account. she's excited at the idea of having only 6 buttons.
My kids don't know what commercials are, and have never needed to worry about when a show is on.
Cable can keep stroking themselves off until the last few subscribers die off, hell, it's still working for AOL, but we all know that they are dead men walking.
Come one, look at who pays them (Hint: Comcast is a major client of PwC) Why on earth would they say anything that would rock the boat? What's the worst that happens? All they ever do is survey a bunch of people, write a slick summary, and call it what the future looks like.
I have no idea who got voted off the island. But I am very satisfied with what I get from having Cable tv.
- New episodes of good tv shows like Sons of Anarchy, The Walking Dead, Dexter, and Breaking bad show up on broadcast first. Streaming is absolutely more convenient. But running up against spoilers is too damn easy to do by accident if you use any kind of social media sites.
- New tv shows like 'The Amerikans' on FX show up on broadcast long before going to streaming sites, unless they are Netflix Originals.
- Live sports matter. Turns out I like watching people fight in a cage for money. The UFC puts out a surprising amount of events on free TV; 9 events on 'Free TV' (each being 6 hours (prelims and main card) plus an additional 9 events with prelim fights, and another event on Fox Sports 1 tomorrow. Watching these events legally through the official streaming service is much more expensive. Watching illegally is a pain in the ass. On top of that is more content from Bellator on Spike and regional promotions on Fight Network. MMA is not for everyone, but it is for me. And for others, its the NFL, or NBA, or NHL, or MLB.
- Also, as far as social media + spoilers, as much as it can hurt the experience of seeing a show to know the ending, it fucking kills any kind of sporting event.
- Not all content that you may wish to watch is going to be streamed easily. My wife is a fan of the Food Network. Not much demand for streams of those shows.
Personally, I love that Netflix and others are doing their own content now, but we are still pretty far off from being able to cherry pick only the shows I want to see and then pay only for that content.
END COMMUNICATION
I think the biggest player that keeps people locked into subscription TV is ESPN, and they know it. Everything else can be found via acceptable delays whether it's Netflix/Hulu/whatever, DVD release, or even torrents. But most fans still strongly prefer to watch sports live.
Most people I know who still subscribe would gladly ditch cable/satellite if they could stream ESPN even if it cost $20/month, which is far more than ESPN gets from the cable companies and would allow them to offer features they can't run through non-interactive media. The number of people who have cut the cord (or know how to) hasn't reached critical mass yet, but once it does, ESPN is either going to be able to start dictating higher fees from cable companies or will take a shot at streaming (or both). I expect a strong drop in the cable/satellite subscriber base in the first year after this happens, which will be devastating to their share prices because jacking up rates to make up for lost revenues and profits will just encourage more people to leave.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
it's the gift that keeps on giving
I understand the appeal of being able to watch exactly what you want, exactly when you want. I watch 2-3 series a week, and it is nice to have them on-demand. But this type of content-centric viewing is not the norm, for me.
Most of the time when I watch TV, I am doing household chores or working on projects that don't take my full attention. Or I watch during a meal. For this type of peripheral viewing, I want to turn on a TV, flip through the channels and settle for the first thing that doesn't make me want to immediately change the channel again. Generally, I am not going to watch through the end of the hour, and I don't want to invest time in actually specifying a program, even if it is better than whatever is on.
The ultimate a-la-carte-anything-on-demand TV solution would undoubtably deliver better content, but would be pretty much useless for the majority of my TV use.
Rather, you should complain that the content producers refuse to license to netflix
But that'd still be complaining. Rather, you can consider making your own content, with blackjack and hookers.
Why on earth would they say anything that would rock the boat?
When the cheese moves, PwC's clients need to know when, where, and how to move with it. Businesses that do not move with the cheese don't stay in business very long.
Sorry to discredit your rant, but PWC != Arthur Andersen. That being said, consultants are consultants, and I generally have little tolerance for them and the value of their sales/services.
The Rachel Maddow Show can be streamed from nbcnews.com.
Live, or delayed a day and requiring user interaction after each clip?
There are plenty of sports to watch with an antenna, if that's your thing.
In 2012 and 2013, some games in the NHL Stanley Cup series were shown on Versus (now NBCSN). That's the finals of professional ice hockey, as if the second half of the Super Bowl were on ESPN. The head of one of the households in my extended family is a fan of NFL, NHL, and UFC, and he told me that should money become tight, he'd rather take himself and others in his household back to dial-up than cut off his sports telecasts.
actually going to the game
Cable is far cheaper per year than season tickets for you and junior to two sports. Attending games in person is also impractical for people who follow an out-of-market team, such as fans who moved away from their favorite team, fans of the team associated with the university that a family member attends, and fans whose favorite player got traded to another team.
or streaming it where available
It probably isn't available. If it's shown OTA or on a national or regional sports network in your area, it's blacked out online.
or going to venues that screen the game.
That depends on how many other people at Buffalo Wild Wings want to watch the same game that you and junior want to watch, and restaurant food is still more expensive than home-cooked food. Or if by "venues" you mean a neighbor's house, that eventually gets ruled out as well.
If you want to watch it live you either (a) need to pay for it or (b) need to go to a bar. I'll go to a bar. It's usually more fun anyway.
Option (b) won't work for parents or college underclassmen in a 21-to-enter state, unless by "bar" you mean something like Buffalo Wild Wings.
Say it to somebody who doesn't have TV, and wouldn't buy it on his own free will.
Cable what? OTA + Netflix gives me pretty much everything I want.
Too bad the cable company is my only halfway decent choice for an ISP.
Looking over the wide range of responses, one thing stands out -- one's opinion on whether "cable is dead" has a lot to do with how much importance one puts on TV in general. If you have a need to make sure you don't miss anything, you still need cable and you tend to believe it'll be there for the foreseeable future.. If you only watch TV occasionally, and your head won't explode if a certain series doesn't happen to be on Netflix right now, (because other series worth watching still are) then you tend towards cable's days being numbered.
What's the actual truth? I dunno. I tend towards cable being a dying technology. But I'm definitely in the second camp -- I don't care about whatever is on TV this week. I'm still working through season two of Veronica Mars.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
if you've got kids, particularly girls, you're stuck. They all want to watch the same shows and the same night. I'm too broke for cable right now (When it hit $170/mo for Internet+tv I had to bail) and it drives my kid nuts. Sure, the shows might show up on Netflix, but it takes months. I can get them on iTunes, but it's so expensive I might as well buy cable (and I'm sure that's by design).
/. crowd) TV is a social thing. It genuinely puts my kid at a social disadvantage that she doesn't have it.
I know a lot of people will rant about Television being brain rot and all that, but for most normal people (hint: Not the
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have the simple philosophy, if it is not available on Netflix, Amazon, or RedBox (rent n rip) then they don't want my money very badly so oh well.
Since they don't want my money, I guess they don't need it so I'll get it from someplace else.
Sports is now a non-argument for cable. The online offering from all the major sports is much more interesting than anything cable is offering these days
I've been off of cable for over 10 years. What compelling content do you have to persuade me to come back, cable providers?
Awesome. I'll ask again next decade, maybe you'll have figured out something by then.
I've concluded that, for the most part, cable TV offerings are a waste of time and a brain drain. If a friend or relative suggests a certain show, I'll look for it online. If I find it for pay, fine, ... if I find it pirated for free, even better.
Cable is a fucking twitching corpse on life support. If they can't migrate to a pay-per-view model, I say tag 'em and bag 'em.
Hi all,
I'm not trolling, honestly, but so many folks here are talking about torrenting. Mind my asking how they aren't getting caught? Years ago NBC sent me a nastygram (via Charter) telling me stop torrenting 30 Rock. And hell, I wasn't seeding it for more than a couple of hours. I was cowed into submission and haven't torrented since. Is there some trick here in the US I can use to keep NBC off my back?
Thanks.
Cable TV is starting to have very little of interest. Network television is the pits of hell. The very limited time I spend watching cable Television is when my SO is watching something. It really isn't difficult to replace the almost 50 percent commercial rate, where now we don't know if the programming is those idiots that need a bath talking about each other, or the main point is how such and such medicine is going to make you kill yourself, but ask your doctor if it is right for you, how to get Social security disability, or the fine range of products thst will allow you to urinate without using a toilet - just pee in your adult diaper, and life will be good. And nothing makes you feel as good as watching a catheter advertisement. Now that's entertainment!
My son has never used Cable Television since being on his own for several years now, a trait shared by many young people. And I am going to be dropping it as soon as the wife gets tired of watching infomercials and the other crap that they foist on us.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Blah yea right, I don't need 99% of the fucking crap on cable assholes
The largest reason I don't have cable TV, except for the cost, is that I cannot choose what channels I pay for. By only having tiered packages available, I cannot avoid having my money going to things I don't watch or find repugnant. I simply don't want my money going to Fox News, MSNBC, MTV, or the flavors of ESPN.
The major content creators (Viacom, Disney, Fox, etc) force cable companies to bundle their offerings, so if you want something popular (say, Nickelodeon) you also end up with the second rate crap or worse (Nick at Nite, CMT, etc). It's very anti-consumer, but no politician wants to get on the bad side of media.
One even more morally disgusting thing is that the NFL can blackout games in taxpayer-funded stadiums. I'm curious if this happens in other countries with football/soccer or other sports?
Also, to pull us gently back in the direction of the topic, sports leagues are selling streaming apps.
And then proceed to make exclusive contracts with cable networks that result in games being blacked out on the streaming apps.
The major content creators (Viacom, Disney, Fox, etc) force cable companies to bundle their offerings, so if you want something popular (say, Nickelodeon) you also end up with the second rate crap or worse (Nick at Nite, CMT, etc). It's very anti-consumer, but no politician wants to get on the bad side of media.
If each provider wants to package its own channels, then why can't people subscribe to, say, just the Turner package (TBS, TNT, TCM, CNN, HLN, Cartoon Network) or just the Disney package (ABC Family, Disney, Disney Junior, ESPN, ESPN2)?
If you have 11 guys bidding on your 10 camels then you will get a great price. If 2 of the guys buy cars so you now have 9 guys bidding for your 10 camels then you are going to get hosed. This is the same situation combined with the fact that people are angry at being abused for a long time. Being forced to pay outrageous prices for crappy programming. Then spreading out the desired channels in to 4 different packages so that we have to buy all 4 to get the 5 channels that we only wanted. Plus commercials that drive us up the wall. Moving programs around based on this weeks insider political clout of the producer. Then cancelling shows when the political clout of the producer dropped below some imaginary threshold.
Then you get the ultimate competitor, piracy. Piracy set the bar as to what the consumer can have. Basically commercial free, on demand, and with no bizarre strings such as time-limits, device limits, or weirdo delays for countries that aren't the US. All this plus it was almost free. The two gate charges were that you had to mess with torrents, and you once in a while get a dud. But Netflix showed that there is a business model that can compete with piracy. Month after month they get money from people who are now getting nearly all the benefits of piracy with none of the downsides.
Is Netflix the be all and end all? Probably not. One great quote I heard went like this, "Will Netflix become more like HBO faster than HBO will become like Netflix."
There are exceptions. Nightly news. Live sports. And highly topical TV such as Big Brother. Those don't quite fit the download netflix model.
Now where this whole thing breaks down is that I suspect that the big producers are all going to think, "Hey we can build out our own netflix with our giant library." They are wrong. If you open up your overpriced hotdog stand next to McDonald's that just went all-you-can-eat you will do 1/1000th of the business. These other companies have little hope of becoming even Pepsi to Netflix's Coke. People aren't going to drop cable to discover the wonders of Netflix at under $10 month only to start tagging on Disney, Warner, Sony, etc bringing them back up to their old obscene cable TV bill. Maybe people will subscribe to 2 services but with their all-you-can-eat libraries growing and getting better why would you need 3+ services?
The one I can't figure out is iTunes. Why would anyone buy anything that you can get on Netflix for the price of many months of Netflix? The prices on iTunes are bonkers.
Actually those saying they pirate and it's the best thing since sliced bread forget that the ISP will throw both a legal monkey wrench as well as a filter and cap wrench into the works.
And this is precisely what cable companies are banking on to hold their customers hostage. It all boils down to personal choice. Money vs. Addiction.
Using your example :-
Must you watch only the Rachel Maddow Show, or are you willing to accept a substitute, perhaps with a similar format ?
Must you watch it live, or are you willing to put up with the inconvenience of delayed telecasts and/or clicking?
Must you watch those specific ice hockey games?
The cable companies have ensured (through exclusivity agreements etc) that if you answer yes to any of the above, you will have to pay a premium to them to scratch your itch. That is their business model. And if you choose to pay them, that is fine. What I am pointing out is that consumers do have choices. Given the way the fees/premium have been rising over the years, it appears that more and more people are answering "no".
...years ago. I tossed cable when Netflix was still sending DVDs in the mail (they probably still offer that - I'm not sure). There's no way in hell I'm paying a dime for the crap that's on the cable lineup.
"I've got 1,300 channels of shit on the TV to choose from..." (Pink Floyd, Nobody Home, from The Wall, 1979 -- revised to add double 00's)
if you enjoy watching sweaty meat bags bash each other's brains in, Family Guy on 2-3 channels at once, followed of course by American Dad, almost every channel removing content in movies, sitcoms, almost everything which isn't offensive but removed so they can shoot more ads at you, this series or that movie featuring simulated killings of live and/or dead/undead, the same dramas and action flicks which have been shown for years repeated weekly with little to no turn around, news featuring people who may be dead or are later found to be dead....
yes, then I believe cable is for you.
WAY off base and wrong. It just takes the will to want to do it right. The Blaze started up from zero, and within 1 year has more prime-time viewers on their Internet video channel than MSNBC and CNN.
Quality content for the right targeted audience is all it take to put the old media out of business.
On Cable TV, around a certain magical number, 98% of the channels switch to PAID PROGRAMMING (infomercials). Instead of continuing to provide actual content, they load you full of ads on every channel and make you scramble to find the only 1-5 channels actually showing something other than PAID PROGRAMMING.
I'm sick to death of seeing it, so unless you pony up and pay for extension(s)...
It should be a choose your own TV channel system but because consumers are mostly dumb, they won't take any action.
Over The Air
Cut the cable 20+ years ago and never looked back. Saved a lot of cash so far.
However, I'm located between two large markets with several stations. If someone is located out in a remote area, this probably isn't viable since antenna ranges top out around 70 mi, I think (can't remember). And terrain is an issue (locations with mountains and locations in mountain valleys are a problem.
Conservative estimate is we receive 60 stations. And we receive HD.
We got tired of paying more and more for cable AND having commercials. Remember when cable started and they promised no commercials since their revenue would come from the subscriptions? We do.
We're also watching more DVDs (collections of programs, etc) and I'm making more use of the internet.
Also I really enjoy watching certain sports, but there is NO way I'm paying ESPN some freakin' premium price just because they're popular. I understand supply and demand, but there also is such a thing as gouging. I sincerely hope they price themselves out of the market.
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
If you read TFA, you will find his claims are contradictory.
First it states the premise:-
So far so good. Then it states the facts relied on to suggest OTT TV doesnt appeal enough to customers :-
Note the assumptions- It assumes that "average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied. The article very carefully never explains why it thinks this is a valid assumption. Do we even have any numbers to show that those who watch 157 hours of traditional television every month are happier with their service than those who watch less?
The irony is that right at the beginning of the article, it admits that
So we do know that customers of cable companies are very unhappy with their cable service. This directly contradicts his assumption that"average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied, since on average they are obviously unhappy even after watching that much.
This is a badly written article trolling for hits.
Some only have the basic cable that comes free with internet.
Lots don't even have that.
As basic speeds are getting so fast, I'm wondering if I really need 900K/second.
I think I could downgrade a couple notches are even go with the local club internet which is $45 a month.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Why cable TV isn't ready for the internet.
Most television is absolute shit. Go watch Hulu for a week if you don't believe me. There isn't even $8 worth of non-shitty brain-drivel content on the whole thing per month.
I haven't bothered with Cable television (or even over the air) in more than a decade. Between Netflix, Amazon Prime, podcasts, and other stuff online I have *more* content than I can even possibly keep up with.
Yeah, sure, it's hard to replace actual television if you're the type of person that spends all day and night sitting on the couch watching shitty talk shows hosted by the mom of the daughter-famous-for-getting-fucked-on-a-home-video whose dad was an accomplished lawyer and reality television and mind-numbingly stupid sit-coms . . . but for people who aren't rotting away in a recliner, there is a fuck-ton of endless video content outside of paying $100-$200/mo for cable or even having an antennae for over the air.
QBittorrent:
- Watch torrents within minutes of finding what you want with in-order downloading.
- Searches span tens of sites & return only results & seed/peer numbers, but no ads. The description page (if you want it) is still only a click away.
- After 3x seed, torrents auto-pause. (no management necessary)
The final video file is mine to watch wherever I want. Unlike Netflix, this includes:
- With the kids during Car trips.
- On the cheap non-Google Android tablets that are affordable enough to entrust to young kids
- On the Cyanogenmod- ed phone because the stock ROM was awful & insecure.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
...it doesn't help that you can't really lay your hands on an IPTV (Direct or Multicast) vendor unless you're talking someone like AT&T (U-Verse), CenturyLink (Prism), or Verizon (FiOS). I've tried, to no avail, to get access to decent service that way. No. Go.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
where do you live where internet speeds are so terrible? Over here in the US, I get 25Mbps for $30. Comcast has the 50Mbps plan for $40 promotional rate.
Uh... Texas.
Comcast charges $98 a month for XFinity internet service after all taxes and fees are applied.
With that, I get free basic cable (for a while it was $70 without cable and $60 with cable).
I'll give them a call tomorrow and see if I can get anything like your quote in my area.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In the Netherlands, the main sports people watch on television is soccer. Nothing more. The national soccer bond has their own live streaming of the 2 leagues and all the international games service which you can subscribe on. National television usually broadcasts the national team if they play a match and there is public television that is streamed by the station itself for "other sports". We have a crowd of people watching Formula 1 on any of two or three channels that usually provide the feed on television, but it's the only sport that can be found "free" on cable that isn't streamed "free" on the internet that has a significant of people watch.
It's being done, it's proven commercially viable because we have enough density of high speed internet to satisfy "the fans". The reason it won't work in the USA yet, is because there aren't enough people able to watch these streams. Once broadband gets enough penetration, Cable and satellite TV will be dead as disco, unless they will start providing a-la-carte channels instead of bundles.
Don't forget that Netflix has their own exclusive series now. You can't get those on cable or satellite and this means that people will eventually be going to want both services. Given the netflix pricing schedule, it will be relatively cheap for people to have both and only pay for the netflix stuff they can't get on cable, or not when they want it. Paying cable for expensive upgrades like a DVR feature will happen less and less because of this.
Advertising income from channels will be lower because fewer people will be watching, even if the potential viewer number doesn't change. That means that the channels offering the content and the producers of the content will look for different ways of making money. They could charge the cable companies more, making cable more unattractive for more and more people, or they could go on the internet. They could do both. Regardless which they choose, the cable companies will have to choose to either get more expensive, or cut costs somewhere internally in their organization. The end result will be that they will have to spend more money on marketing to compensate for the lower quality and/or the higher price, again resulting in a less satisfied customer.
It doesn't take much more than what is already happening to trip the balance for the cable and satellite companies. It's already happening and it will be a matter of time until they will start to change their pricing model and offer you to pay per channel. It may take some bankruptcies for this to happen, but it will happen soon enough. That won't be the end, but they'll be around as long as enough people can't get high speed internet in their homes. Cable TV will probably die sooner than Satellite, but in the end, we'll all be watching IP-based streams, or whatever the prevailing technology is by then.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Turn off the blue tube. Read a fucking book you ignorant stupid motherfuckers.
Why not a model like this:
Organization wants to create a TV show,
they create a budget
they crowd-fund it using a kick starter style method
All the people who support it get first access on air date. It's released to the general public 1 week/1 month later/3 days earlier on the pirate bay
Each season they fund again.
TV becomes democratic. TV shows which flounder are unlikely to get funded for another season, we find out what people really want to watch.
I'm new to this IPTV thing and after reading quite a bit, I still can't make heads or tails out of it. I currently have DirecTV and enjoy how I can, with one click, browse through the channel listing guide and mark a series to record or a movie etcetera. I'm basically a hermit and have my TV beside my Computer and very much enjoy that I can simply browse the guide and watch one of the movie channels (HBO, Stars etc) with shows back to back without having to be interrupted to click anything. In fact, I don't think I watch anything except the movie channels and the local and live news. Before you ask about an Antenna, I tried that already and we can't get a signal in our area, it's too far away from any big city or tv stations.
My question is as follows to IPTV users here: Does IPTV work the same way, or is it something I will need to be constantly interrupted to click things and wait for buffering and stuff?. That would be too cumbersome to me. If it makes any difference, this household uses Linux on all the computers and it would be appreciated not to recommend any Microsoft product, but don't hold that against me. So what say you?.
If you think about it, torrents are basically a method of protest to get shows available online legally or supporting the show that isn't in your country yet by letting companies know that there's a fanbase (hence why torrenting unlicensed anime is legal). The legal system is more or less in favor of big corporation that want to steal money from consumers ie: Cable companies that forces you into packages, rather than the channels you want to watch because in reality the average person probably only would subscribe to about 4 or 5 channels. I pay for hulu and netflix but they don't have every show in the world so I'm stuck having to find alternatives since I don't have cable. Cable is dying and the only reason it's not dying faster is because the older generations don't even know how to work email.
a study that was paid for by cable companies said they were doing fine and weren't obsolete? what a surprise
Sports (both professional and collegiate) fuel the spiral of cable TV cost increases. Whether you watch them or opt out of the sports tier, you are still paying for sports. Loss of sports coverage is also a real reason why a good chunk of people will never 'cut the cord'.
It's a moral battle, not a pragmatic one. P2P would already be dead if they simply treated it as a competitor. They've got huge war chests, loads of deals with device manufacturers, all of the content, and the ability to make more. They could beat it on convenience and narrow the price disadvantage until they mopped the floor with it. Unfortunately they see the moral issue that people shouldn't be pirating content and mistakenly assume that reversing that is the solution.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I haven't had a TV in ages. I love it. I only watch a hand full of things anyway. My Girlfriend watches 3x more than I do and is happy with just using internet for her silly shows. Except that the same commercials Over and Over and Over again can get kinda mind numbing.
Man... People are DUMB!
I know WAY more women who watch sports than men. NFL football in particular is almost entirely a "girl thing" now.
AT&T knew this would happen, my monthly DSL bandwidth has a soft cap of 150 GB with extra data charged @ $10/per additional 50 GB. AT&T thinks 5 gigs a day should be enough for anyone, my grand kids would beg to differ; they are very network intensive with Ipods and tablets and a roku box and video messaging and netflix and youtube and "grampa could you get us " which means a torrent download with appropriate uploading and more bandwidth...
Serenity now, insanity later.
Revenue Streams. TV shows advertising models are the networks revenue streams and they clash with our it works online. Who wants to spend 18 minutes in 1 hr watching advertising? I would pay a little more each month is my TV channels provider would deliver advertisement free TV shows.
People like to throw around their pet business models when arguing this issue, but when it comes down to it, I don't care about anything that cable/satellite offers me over what I already get from Netflix. A lot of people seem really sold on television as a lifestyle, though, and for me, that isn't enough to convince me that I need to pay for something beyond the $8 a month I already pay. If they want to stop making new shows as a result, I don't really care.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
well stop asking for degrees and get rid of that personality test
Are you seriously wanting us to think that the internet TV is not ready.
1) Get netflix ready component ps3, xbox, wdtvlive, wii
2) Get netflix account for 8$ a month (replacing costly pvrs and decoders from ur fav. consumer company)
3) Watch the limitless tv shows WITHOUT THE ADS OR COMMERCIALS.
How is this "not ready yet"?
Whoever this smaxpis, please ....do us a favor and hang up your journalistic pen.
We don't have cable, no one is at a social disadvantage. Of course our family is social in the old fashioned way where we get out and do things.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Hulu and Netflix aren't really Internet Television - they are on-demand streaming.
True Internet Television hasn't actually happened yet independent of the standard providers (some providers offer ways of streaming channels you subscribe).
Currently there is no company out there that will sell me an actual television package over IP. I live in the middle of no where, there is no cable service, my sky view isn't good enough to get satellite without moving to the other side of the hill I live on.
I can subscribe to Hulu, Netflix and maybe get a delayed on-demand streaming option, but that isn't watching actual TV, that isn't flipping though the channels and seeing what is on, it isn't live sports, or local programming.
Until a company will sell me actual television packages that I can stream over the Internet, Internet Television doesn't exist so of course it isn't ready to save us from cable.
Sports is certainly the last hold-out for live pay TV, but nightly news isn't. I can already watch Tagesschau on my Roku with a mere several hours' delay, if I don't happen to catch it live. Anything more actual than that people will go to Twitter or Facebook or YouTube to see the real-time reports and videos that people upload from their phones. "Real" news is mostly spin and BS anyhow--it has lost all value.
Sports shouldn't get too comfortable, though, because in the era of Google Glass and drones the chance for real-time broadcasts sourced from those who haven't paid the NFL millions for air rights is quickly coming about.
The upshot of all of this is none of us has the luxury of resting on our laurels anymore. We all have to use our brains constantly to make a living.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
this also reminds me of "Why Doesn't MTV Play Music Videos Anymore?" as described in this satire (turn volume down, language NSFW), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysyZF-DZFY
Overall, I see "watching TV" as phasing out. Ugh, visiting friends that have network TV playing and it's all super bad. There are a few (very few) cable channels somewhat worthwhile but even TCM is repeating movies and having more self-gratifying "advertisement." Internet TV seems pretty good but requires highspeed internet which may or may not be readily available. But then I'm an old guy from the 20th century who used to remember when late night TV played movies, and variety was pretty good. OK there was some ads have to watch (Cal Worthington and his dog Spot, or Ga3ry from MMM Carpets) but not atrocious as current ads.
mfwright@batnet.com
The TV license system in the UK is old. Some hate it, however, for £12 a month its gives me full access to the BBC i Player.
I can download/stream great TV from the BBC without any adverts.
All the BBC need to do, is allow streaming/downloading of old programs. Once they master this, for me, its the only way TV as we know it will expand for the companies and its users.
Yes, the BBC doesn't offer other channels or programs which they do not own, however, their wide offering of programs is unique and doesn't require premium costs for "sports coverage" etc.
The current TV/cable structure is stuck in the past. Yes, the BBC has had it easy with their required TV license funds, but, they are a prime example of what the future needs, and, how to achieve it.
Until that time comes, TPB and BBC i player are the only things i have time for. I cant stand to watch another advert, and, Netflix fails to offer "everything".
There will be no real change until people realize there is very, very little of value to watch, and 600 channels of garbage is completely unnecessary.
I'm one of the the few who has cut that proverbial cord. I have a good old fashioned antenna to pull in local stations (in HD!). Everything else that has any value can be found on iTunes, Netflix, or the Internet.
Most cable tv is conveniently bundled to internet subscriptions brought to the consumer through one corporate monopoly. TWC blocks CBS and affiliates; whats next they block cbs websites then? I had the same package you had $65 for cable and internet but you end up being forced to rent a cable box for 2 years and a modem as well. My bill was always $100. And when I got a clue and cancelled my contract after 1 &1/2 years they threatened to bill me $900 for a box i had paid for in rent atleast 2 times over. And even when I had cable the shows i paid for were censored, curse words were bleeped. Fuck that. I dont have kids. Why am i forced to watch commercials when i'm paying for the shows i'm watching? Let alone commercials for ths company providing me the content. Then my bandwidth is capped when they have the ability to let me download 50 Gbps and I'm getting capped at 10 Mbps. I cant get comcast in my Area. I loathe both verizon and att so i wont go back to either of them so now i deal with basic digital tv which gives me 12 channels unless a helicopter flies by. So i bought clear wireless for internet and if i want to watch a series or the latest breaking bad I go online and get it. The problem is our government making laws that allow monopolies to exist. Allow them to buy up all competition and allow them to manipulate consumers into accepting violations of our civil rights by dumbing us down and making us lazy to do anything but accept it. You think we have a free press in this country when news is brought to us by commercial interruptions. I cant get cspan without cable so i cant be informed without purchasing cable. Whats going to happen is revolution. There are already movements to have a constitutional convention. We have all this freedom supposedly and yet 2 choices for everything. Timewarner or comcast. DTV or Dish. ATT or Verizon. Republican or democrat. Evils and lesser evils. Fuck that i dont shop corporate i dont vote corporate backed. I would rather "throw my vote out" then subscribe to any evil. Quit watching tv and write your assemblyman. Federal is fucked and americans have forgotten we are 50 sovereign states bound to a shredded constitution and a government that couldnt be further from representing the people.
Just signed up for Aereo last week. 30+ channels, all online, hi def quality, built-in DVR, slick, simple, and easy-to-use interface.
In the future, founders say they will sell channels a la carte.
Consider the cable/satellite systems disrupted.
My $8/month comes with complete and total peace of mind. I can keep my chin up knowing that I'm legal and don't have to worry about it.
I buy at least 1 drive-thru coffee a week for $4, which should put this into perspective.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I do that too, but consider
- the latest shows that won't make Netflix this decade,
- the benefits of fully-patched Android devices over unpatched stock roms. I have more piece of mind from that than anything,
- the civil disobedience against ever-more-invasive corporate blockades with laws attached. Are you sure you have nothing to worry about in the grander sense?
- other providers: I've watched UK shows which will never be available to the USA.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.