Slashdot Mirror
Cutting the Cord? Time Warner Loses 184,000 TV Subscribers In One Quarter
Mr D from 63 (3395377) writes Time Warner Cable's results have been buoyed recently by higher subscriber numbers for broadband Internet service. In the latest period, however, Time Warner Cable lost 184,000 overall residential customer relationships [Note: non-paywalled coverage at Bloomberg and Reuters]. The addition of 92,000 residential high-speed data customers was offset by 184,000 fewer residential video customers in the quarter. Triple play customers fell by 24,000, while residential voice additions were 14,000.
And I asked myself quite reasonably, "Why the fuck do I have cable TV?"
It sounds absurd that people are getting better internet speeds from wireless carriers than their ISPs, but here we are.
Keep fucking with us and we'll fuck you back. Can't wait for their downfall.
Though I don't expect it to happen quickly, I take comfort (even Schadenfreude) in hearing news like this, as I long for a new era of "Dumb Pipe"
When these clowns raise their residential tv rates every 3 months or so.
We found a sweet spot at 40 a month for basic boxless catv and 20/5 Internet. Funny thing is we would have gladly removed all tv services but they would have charged more for the service going Internet only.
I'm cutting them out of my life as soon as our city wide giga broadband rolls out
Anyplace people have an option they take it. As far as I can see they only have one legitimate purpose which is to encourage distrust in the local governments that so egregiously ignored the needs of their communities.
I wonder if they will respond by raising prices on their broadband now, especially in the areas where there is no real competition.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The writing has been on the wall for several years now. Traditional TV viewing is going to be extinct in the near future. Too many people want to move to mobile devices, have video on demand, and other options. The cable/distribution companies need to get on board or die with the old business model. There are at least a few signs that they're starting to understand that.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
That's really weird that TW lost 186k subscribers last quarter, because my project came in $186k overbudget last quarter. Coincidence?
Which is reason enough to ditch cable TV.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
My Internet still has a cord. I'm fine with that.
Also, those so-called "cord cutters" are probably still buying their internet from Time Warner.
The fact of the matter is that I don't have much of a choice as do most people don't. I only recently got AT&T Uverse in my area, it didn't look that much better according to my neighbors. Their TV offerings are better but their Internet is worse. We have a smaller cable company in the city which has a great reputation and service but not offered in my area.
Cable: Time Warner (available but sucks)
AT&T Uverse (available but sucks)
Verizon not available
Comcast not available
Other cable company not available
Other broadband internet not available (No Google Fiber. No Verizon Fiber)
So my choices are DirectTV or Dish for TV or AT&T (DSL) for internet. Competition simply does not exist.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Cable TV provided so little value for the money all I've noticed is the thousands of dollars I've saved over the years. With Netflix, Amazon Prime and an antenna, I've not really missed anything of value.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop when the last bastion of why anyone would pay for cable -- live sports -- starts to have an effective streaming model that Joe Sixpack can easily use. The current model with blackouts and IP restrictions that require VPNs and other nonsense throw up too many barriers for many to figure out. Drop those barriers and many people lose the last reason they have cable, since it's largely disposable "reality" series filling the 400 channels that are received, and the quality stuff can be found by other means.
I just got off the phone ending my cable subscription when I saw this post. Perfect timing :)
The reason is different, though. While I am not a customer of Time Warmer (different country), I realised that I wasn't needing it anymore. Or more precisely: there's nothing of interest on it for me. I watch perhaps 3 hour a month; the few things I want to see (mostly news, a few background programs) I can watch on free-to-air. So I'm saving about $20 a month now, which I might use for a cinema ticket or so.
I'm sure I'm not the only one... Perhaps there's more to cable-cutting than just rising cost.
"Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
Who wants to pay a subscription to watch commercials?
I am rooting for a death spiral. There are so many cable channels that would die a very quick death in any sort of ala carte system where they actually had to compete. The system has been cable system has been setup to extract maximum dollars, while providing very low quality (maximizing profit). I'd much rather see an ala carte system with a few very good premium channels, along with some scrappy quirky channel, and let the invisible hand slap down the rest. I want to be able to get HBO without ESPN, QVC, TLC,CNN, Fox News, etc. Get it down to a handful of good channels that i pick out for $20 a month and I might sign back up.
For now I watch a few things on Hulu and Netflix, and buy dozen or so DVD's a year. I am pretty happy with what I get for the money, and I am very glad that ESPN doesn't get one red cent from me.
What? No.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Anecdotally, I never watch TV and I'm 27, part of a fairly large generation/cohort that has shown to be very unlikely to adopt TV. Ran into a classmate from high school and the story was the same, she doesn't even OWN a TV, let alone TV service. Like me she gets everything online. On the non anecdotal, it is telling when they are routinely, for the last 4 years running that I know of, the winners or runner up to the most hated companies in the US, with their customer service rated below everyone in their industries (Both TV and Internet Service), and are rated below even banks. I think that really is amazing and has to be sinking in, that people rate their ISP and TV service below those who arguably have committed massive criminal behavior and can strip people of their homes. Mind you, in this day and age, being stripped of Internet Service, while no where near as bad as losing ones shelter, is a pretty crippling blow to economic and educational opportunity and in some cases, denies you even basic functioning life since some government functions are moving to be purely online. Even in the case where it is not, the sheer difference in what you have to devote time to without an internet connection represents a massive drawback (Imagine having to personally drive or transport to pay all bills, as well call business to ascertain information, as well as conduct any government business of any kind, such as taxes or drivers license).
That they were going to become Comcast customers after the merger.
XDInd
Because a lot of cable companies charge less per month for Internet + basic TV than for Internet alone. Or because sporting events usually end up blacked out online for people who don't subscribe to the pay TV channel on which it is shown in your area.
You have more options than I do. No DSL, satellite blocked by trees............... only Time Warner Ca-bull. Best I can do is threaten to leave every once in a while and try to get a retention rate.
Which just makes me so glad that I don't sit on my ass watching other people exercise for entertainment.
Good luck sustaining those speeds for any length of time. With the typical 5 GB/mo cap of a typical cellular Internet plan, a 10 Mbps Internet connection won't last more than 5 * 8000 / 10 / 60 = 67 minutes, after which you're offline for the rest of the day and the next 29 days. Even in areas where the cable company imposes a 300 GB/mo cap, that's still a more reasonable choice for operating system updates, video streaming, paid movie and video game downloads, and other lawful things that home Internet users expect to do with an Internet connection.
DirecTV (HughesNet) and Dish also have internet, as do Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T on wireless if you can get any of them in 4G.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I long for a new era of "Dumb Pipe"/quote. Dumb is unprofitable, and as long as regulators see home Internet as a luxury and not a necessity, home Internet won't get regulated like the public utility it is.
You get what you pay for...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I haven't had cable for eight years. Haven't missed it one bit. The very idea of letting TV schedule when I can sit and watch is ridiculous. Same goes for a DVR, where you have to both know about a show before it airs and set up the DVR to record it. Netflix has a terrible selection here in Canada so I tried that for whatever the trial period was and then ditched it. Turns out I ALWAYS have better things to do than watch TV, and when I give in to the urge I just hit up a torrent site.
Those are TWs only options. Offer a la carte channels and streaming or lose thousands more subscribers. I'm already paying for an internet connection and with it I have youtube, twitch, netflix, etc. I wouldn't pay for cable channels if the packages were dirt cheap. I can get what I want, when I want, ad-free over the internet.
To channel my inner Howard Hughes: 'It's the way of the future, the way of the future... the way of the future... the way of the future..."
and haven't watched TV in over 3 years. Have cable though because mom watches several hours a day while I'm online most of the day. I don't even read /. often anylonger as the damn beta has jumped the shark.
There is an alternative. It's called buying season tickets for your family to the local high school, college, or minor league professional team.
I was a TW customer for some time and then moved to a place where my only cable choice is Comcast. I can tell you from experience that TW was a vastly better product. Comcast is getting better, but I still got a better product for less money (and free service calls on top of it) through TW than what I get from Comcast.
TW customers should be breathing a sigh of relief that the merger didn't go through; Comcast customers are disappointed that they missed out on a possible chance at a better product.
That said, there is still almost nothing on TV worth watching. This is becoming increasingly a fault of the cable companies as they go about buying up networks so that they can provide various degrees of exclusive content.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Cable TV is pretty expensive for what you get, it's full of ads you can't really choose what content you want, etc. It has to become competitive to survive.... well that's how it should work but then the music industry was also faced with this conundrum ~15 years ago and I think they chose to lobby their way into survival, I expect the same song and dance from Cable.
No customers were lost; this is a ploy to seek justification to raise the base rate.
Read the article...
We had a baby in 2010, cut the cord because we didn't want to contaminate him will all the bullshit. Sports is the only thing we remotely miss..
This is very easy to stop if they want, cut out the reality shit, produce quality content. Make the news news again with a bit less opinion. And by quality content, I'd say figuring out Law and Order and CSI and then making n versions of those shows in different cities probably isn't good enough. No more American Idol type crap. Like real quality entertainment, like dramas and comedies. I'd gladly pay for a news channel and 5 to 10 channels with good quality stuff on it.
That takes money, takes risk and takes some intelligence to try to suss out the good from the bad. Thus I predict it won't happen, not from the current batch of media and distribution companies. They're too fat and lazy and used to just cashing checks.
With cable, it is more like you get what you negotiate for....
But you dont. I may join the mass exodus with no tv subscription and the Internet dropping out daily.
TV is going through a wierd shift right now.
It's both the very best it's ever been and the very worst. There are a handful of very very very high quality shows. Honestly the most well produced, well written, entertaining, amazing video ever made and rivals even the best cinema.
The rest is crap. Really really really crap. Repulsive, base, cheaply made, immoral, sensational, manipulative, pandering shlock that insults your intelligence. Well, it's not all as bad as Fox News but it's not much better either.
At some point the makers of the handfuls of good shows are going to realize that they don't need traditional TV distribution to gain viewership and make money. HBO is going to "cut the cord" and and sell content online. I predict cable companies are going to start imploding when they can no longer rely on forced bundling to sell you drek you don't want to watch.
So we have some good shows, but it's not enough. Personally I've found you can get everything else you want and more on youtube. I don't give a wet fart about celebrity gossip but I can watch some english guy in his basement take apart vintage 70's laboratory equipment and explain it's theory of operation for hours. And I do.
not offered in my area
Apparently sglewis100, an AC, Zero__Kelvin, and allquixotic think moving to an area with better Internet options is worthwhile.
How do you get your news , both local and national?
Local and national news channels tend to run web sites. Is it that much less convenient to read instead of watching? For local weather, I key a ZIP code into the National Weather Service's web site. Besides, local and national news can be received OTA periodically throughout the day.
Not really much congress can do about this one (short of requiring everyone to pay for cable TV or incur a tax penalty).
Great Britain and several other countries do exactly that.
Satellite Internet can be very expensive. Wireless Internet (Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, etc) typically comes with a hard cap (e.g. 10GB) and is very expensive (especially if you get overage fees). Just try watching a couple of Netflix videos every day on your cell phone connection and see how quickly you hit your cap.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Oddly, mine doesn't. Charter vigorously advertises their triple play for $90, emphasizing with each ad that internet, tv, and phone are "$30 apiece" while internet alone is $50. I've told them repeatedly I've got no interest in phone, but if they could do internet + tv for $60 or even $65--basically just the price point they established for themselves--that I'd take it, but no, internet + TV is also $90, identical to the plan with the phone. I get the bulk discount, but that's just irrational.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
There are no stumbling blocks that make it the sole domain of Microsoft and Tivo.
Not even TiVo's patent war chest?
Besides having to rent the box the electricity bill skyrockets. These boxes aren't energy efficent and I shouldn't need one in the first place. The televisions are already digital and the cable companies merely use them to reduce the quality of of the content they are streaming so they can fit more shows in less space.
Think about it, this is the beginning of the end for CATV. It will likely only exist for another 10 - 15 years as a dominant form of Infotainment Delivery. Heck with HBO offering Streaming only, I can only imagine it will be getting worse for CATV providers. My estimation is that in Ten-Fifteen years, only "old people" will have CATV, and CATV will be the next industry killed off by the internet (similar to Newspapers today)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
With cable, it is more like you get what you negotiate for....
Yea, and I used to do that, pre-2009 when I ditched it for good.
I would call up and haggle with the customer service rep, and end up on the phone with them for way too long...
It was a tiresome experience I would go through about every two years or so to, as you say, negotiate.
I finally said to hell with it and ditched them, and am glad I did.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Turn on some English-language Internet radio feeds:
-- BBC
-- CBC (Canadian)
-- ABC (Australian)
-- DW (Germany)
-- Local NPR
-- Al Jazerra
That will get you some different views on the happenings in the world. They have been talking about the Ebola situation in West Africa for six months not the last 3 weeks of hysteria on US cable news channels. My 23 yo daughter was shocked none of her friends had a clue about the Ebola situation because she had been hearing about it for six months.
"Disaster news" means "here's the part of town to avoid on your commute". "Some weather" means "here's what to wear when you leave for work". "Sports happened" means "here's what to discuss with coworkers in order not to sound shamefully uninformed".
At least the NHL now offers Internet access to the majority of their regular season games. Maybe the rest of the leagues will follow suit in the near future.
Why don't the cable companies don't do something like youtube, where show producers just upload new episodes onto the service once a week or whatever, and then people can just watch it whenever. Require a subscription, just like cable. You get more accurate view counts than with tv, so you can pay the content producers for how many people actually watch. Customers don't have to worry about missing their stupid show. Instead of a damn cable box, sell people a box that connects to this service, or just let them use their PC.
Of course not all 200 sports channels will survive, and some of the Christian channels might die off. But that's a price I'm willing to pay.
It's probably been 6 years now. Time warner was doing their mystro cable box upgrade. Constant hangs and glitches. One of the straws that finally got me was they had a porn channel next to one of the channels I regularly watch so the descriptions comes up every time I look at the guide. There was no way to just have a favorites list either. It occurred to me that my kids would be reading very soon and I would have to answer a lot questions before I wanted to if that continued. It turned out basic was only $2 more than just internet so I have basic now but the box is gone and we mostly watch netflix or hulu.
>> Time Warner Cable's results have been buoyed recently
I'm amazed that anyone chooses Time Warner for internet. Their ongoing record of blatant customer/internet abuse is truly astounding.
I looked carefully at my viewing habits, concluded I was paying a fortune for the two or three channels I actually watched, and decided there had to be a better way. The major drop in the quality of the content didn't help.
I now have over-the-air TV for local news, iTunes, Netflix and Acorn, DVDs, and stream stuff. This includes a U.K. VPN account to circumvent BBC and ITV geoblocking. It all works fine.
...laura
I'm surprised the number isn't higher. New neighborhoods are lighting up with Google Fiber every month. I'm just pissed I'm going to have to wait until next year! https://fiber.google.com/citie...
That's not my experience where I live (Los Angeles). We went from Internet + Basic Cable with AT&T UVerse to Internet only and saved ~$70 per month. Where are you located where internet access costs more than basic cable???
When a product sucks, people stop buying it.
*** Don't be dull.***
Unless you watch specific channels that you can't stream over the internet or want to pay for overpriced service, all you need is a $20 HD Tuner + Windows Media PC + Netflix/Hulu and you have almost the same exact experience as having cable for a fraction of the cost.
If it weren't for TiVO's patents, companies would be able to sell pre-built devices that can stream OTA content, record shows DVR style and have a channel guide just like the cable set top boxes. Cable companies are a racket and they know it. Services like Netflix came along and made them actually have to be competitive. Many channels are now offering internet streaming subscriptions like ESPN. It's only a matter of time before the wiley cable company goes extinct unless of course the AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner super lobby group gets their way with net neutrality.
Capitalism is about producing better quality goods at a cheaper price by being driven to innovate in order compete. These types of businesses are trying to control market space to fix prices. They're all in collusion with each other. They should be be broken up and regulated like the phone companies. Better yet, make the internet a public utility because it's critical to so many every day business and consumer needs.
We'll make great pets
Previous posts: AC on Comcast, mrchaotica on Comcast, sandytaru (no ISP specified), AC (no ISP specified)
1 of 184,000 right here!
I paid about $100 (a bit less) a month for Direct TV. I was happy with the service, generally, but not happy in paying almost $1,200 a year to watch TV.
I cut the cable, and went (I live in the LA/OC area) with broadcast TV. Some rooms have just a flatwave antenna, and a converter box, others are hooked up to a rooftop antenna, some TVs have a digital receiver, others have a converter box that also functions as a PVR.
I miss sports, like Baseball and Hockey, not available on OTA. The NFL is mostly on OTA, and most of the shows I watch are available OTA, in Hi-Def, not the standard def that Direct TV provides (they charge considerably extra for Hi-Def).
After a few hundred dollars in upfront costs (rooftop antennas, plural, Coax cable and connectors, two flatwave antennas and three converter boxes for non digital TVs) I have the following:
*Free, Hi-Def TV with lots of shows to watch, including OTA networks like Me-TV, Grit, Escape, Retro TV, Antenna TV, Cozi TV, the Works, showing films from the 1930s to 1990s, and tv series from the 1950s to 1990s. I also get ION, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, My Network TV, Bounce, Movies, and three different sets of PBS stations.
*Almost everything in stunning, Hi-Def 1080p.
*Ability to record onto a portable HD and take the recording with me to watch when I want; during dead time at various doctors offices, medical procedures, etc. for family members.
*NO NONE ZERO recurring costs.
Paying for Cable is a rip-off like paying for contract phones. Sure the upfront costs are low, but the math of recurring monthly payments adds up to thousands of dollars a year.
Cable cutting is consumers being pressed to the point that a hundred bucks a month makes a difference. But hey, flooding the labor market with extra workers and global labor competition has a function: depressing real incomes and making things like cable cutting the wave of the future.
Consider that if roughly 200,000 people cut the TWC cord each quarter, that's nearly 1 million (800,000) a year in revenue loss, or roughly $960 million a year inf foregone revenue assuming a nominal $1,200 a year revenue stream from each subscriber and lumping the loss into an entire year for convenience sake.
Since people will cut the cord during different quarters that number would be less, and the number could acellerate or decrease per quarter, but that's the nominal loss.
Conclusion: loss of income among the middle class due to globalization kills the consumer market.
And look at how well public utils still put the screws to people..
will only be a billionaire?
Because a lot of cable companies charge less per month for Internet + basic TV than for Internet alone. Or because sporting events usually end up blacked out online for people who don't subscribe to the pay TV channel on which it is shown in your area.
Which was the only time I ever got Cable TV when I had Cable Internet.
That said, we had TWC at my last house for years until they tried to raise the rate and not give us the current new customer rates. It wasn't until we had already completed a switch to AT&T uVerse that we got the "can we do anything to keep you as a customer" call even though when we cancelled we made it abundantly clear why.
Now, I'm not much of a fan of AT&T DSL (at our current residence) or uVerse (at our last house). Speed was a lot more reliable on TWC than it is on AT&T, but we don't get much choice where we are right now.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Hulu recently pulled an interesting stunt. The've been running WGN's "Manhattan" series, about the original A-bomb program. Anyone could watch it free, with ads, after a few days.
Then, for the final episode, they forced people to register with Hulu or sign in with Facebook to see the episode. Their message says "This video is intended for mature audiences. Use your Facebook or free Hulu account to continue." I checked with WGN. Hulu is lying; the last episode is not for "mature audiences". WGN says they'll try to get Hulu to fix it, but it's been over a week and it hasn't been fixed.
Hulu is learning from the cable companies how to put their boot on the user's face.
It's slashdot though, who here watches sports?
How do you get your news , both local and national?
You are staring at it. I get the majority of my news through the internet and some through print and radio. Using TV to get news is a great way to be out of touch if you actually want to know what is going on. TV is really bad at providing context or depth. You need to step out of the 1980s and join us here in the modern world.
Do you not keep up with or care about real news of the world and your local community?
A TV is pretty much the least useful way to keep up with real news most of the time. The internet is faster and has more content. Newspapers and magazines have more depth and usually are more timely. I can listen to the radio while driving. TV wastes a LOT of my time with advertisements and banal fluff pieces. There are times when TV is a great source of coverage but most of the time there are better options out there.
But you do have to sit at your computer and read it, as opposed to listening to it while you put on your clothes and makeup and the like.
Radio and podcasts is better for that plus I can listen to radio or podcasts in my car. Bear in mind that you aren't going to absorb much in the way of news while listening to a broadcast which dressing yourself. You really do have to read to get serious amounts of information in a short time.
ahem
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
> Time Warner Cable lost 184,000 overall residential customer relationships
Couldn't happen to a nicer company.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
they're running, fast, ahead of comcast's eventual (you know it is gonna happen, regardless of how fucked up the idea is) takeover.
How is it cutting the cord, when in 90% of the cases, you still have a cord providing internet to your house? While I get the gist of what is being said, would not "ditching the box" be a more correct phrase?
You could just do what I did and switch to Google Fiber. It's pretty decent quality and you get free equipment like an 802.11n router. For cable, your remote control is a free tablet that you get to keep. Not sure why more people haven't done this...
I cut the cord about 5 years ago. I'm using a Boxee TV device with my antenna. It picks up local broadcasts and connects to my HDTV via HDMI. It also has Netflix/Hulu/Vudu/Vimeo built in. As an added bonus, it has an app that allows you to use Plex so you can stream your movie collection via wifi or ethernet. Boxee got bought by Samsung and they shut it down, but you can still pick one up for 50-100 bucks on Amazon or Ebay. I'm looking for another solution down the road once this device is obsolete though. I've seen Tivo come out with the Roamio which does essentially the same thing, but requires a subscription for the DVR.
For me the following reasons are why I hate TW.
- I hate their DVRs. These devices, although someone re-wrote the existing crappy code into crappy Java code it still is the same crap with the same memory leakage problems and crashes. These DVRs still look like they did 15 years ago when I first purchased my ReplayTV. Who wants this piece of crap in their living room? The units are slow to boot taking over 11 minutes, which is always fun when you have a 1 second power outage and you miss your entire show. ( Yes, I have UPSs on my TVs, DVRs, and computers). The CPUs are so slow that the when the DVRs freeze up it becomes very easy to hit a few too many keys and end up deleting the show that you were watching.
- They are only interested in greed at the expense of me. Throttling my bandwidth is one thing but when I get "Channel not available, try again later", I DON'T THING SO! I know, the wonderful world of variable rate channels and that the cable companies only broadcast the channels when a user tunes to that channel. And if you happen to be the poor soul that is the only one watching a channel when there isn't enough bandwidth, you don't get to watch your show. Right in the middle of a show this can happen to you! IT SUCKS.
And Congress continues to suck the balls of these companies believing it to be prime rib.
How do they include the people who just downgraded a service (as opposed to dropping TWC entirely)?
For example, if someone downgrades from triple-play to data+voice (dropping TV), does that count as a loss in the triple-play column, and a gain in the data and voice column?
If this is the case, then these numbers are misleading. It makes it look like they somehow gained 106,000 "new" customers, when they might have actually lost 78,000 entirely, with another 106,000 reducing their service.
Does Comcast has bandwith limit or cap?
How do you deal with cap limit if you're watching 1080p video on 3 or 4 TV / PC ?
The wife and I were paying $100 a month to watch just several channels. Hulu has about half of what we like to watch for less than a tenth of the price. On top of that, they DRM every damn thing. I setup my own homebrew DVR with MythTV (mostly because the cable company's dvr suuuuucked) and couldn't watch many channels. I wasn't breaking the law with my DVR, I just wanted to watch TV my own way and not theirs. So Hulu was the best middle-of-the-road solution out there. It's hard to beat the price, the commercials are quick and it is on demand programming.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I've recently cut the cord. My cable bill suddenly increased to $100/mo just for the TV. I realized I almost never watch it. So, I bought a attic antenna, a pre-amp, and now I have all the majors (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS, Ion), a few sundry others, and for free. True, the antenna and pre-amp cost me roughly 100. But over the year, and for the next dozen after, I pay nothing. I turned my box in last week.
I kept the internet. That's still awesome at 60/mo, 60mbs. Thanks Netflix. Thanks Plex. I'm good to go.
It doesn't *have* to be a dedicated PC or even one PC - the front (display) / back (record/database) ends can be split.
Then you have to buy two more computers: one to use as the back end and one to use in the living room as the front end. Or which pre-configured MythTV back end device for recording OTA video and which pre-configured MythTV front end device for the living room should a non-technical user buy?
Download and install MythBuntu
Onto what computer? Can someone install it on a household's only computer without A. losing ready access to the PC applications on which one depends or B. harming the recording in progress when the computer restarts for security updates? Non-technical users expect home entertainment equipment to be as reliable as a DVD player, cable box, or unmodded video game console. No, "get your ass off Slashdot if you're not a technical user" is not a constructive answer because if MythTV is not for non-technical users, non-technical users will continue to fill the coffers of the pay-television establishment.
MythTV even supports USB and Firewire devices
All makes and models, or is it like the "winmodem" era where Ubuntu has no driver for a lot of the devices out there?
and can even use your cable decoder, if it supports USB/Firewire
Even if the cable box encrypts the FireWire output with DTCP?
(which, I believe HD units are required to by law - in the US anyway).
"Sure, but HD units require HD service, which will be another $18.00 per month."
Many Slashdot users share a household or an extended family with someone who watches sports.
And consumer groups have historically been less effective at raising campaign contributions than industry groups. A lot of these consumer advocacy organizations are organized as not-for-profit organizations, which cannot contribute to campaigns. Some, such as NORML Foundation, have an affiliated political action committee, but which PAC is aligned with the interests of (say) Consumers Union, FSF, or EFF?
It doesn't *have* to be a dedicated PC or even one PC - the front (display) / back (record/database) ends can be split.
Then you have to buy two more computers
Or you can simply use one PC, like I do. You don't have to use multiple, but can.
Download and install MythBuntu
Onto what computer? Can someone install it on a household's only computer without A. losing ready access to the PC applications on which one depends or B. harming the recording in progress when the computer restarts for security updates?
On just about any system that can run Linux or FreeBSD (and others...). (A) the back-end runs in the background (like a service) and the front end fires ups in X Windows and can be used in an "always on" dedicated fashion, if you're only using the PC for MythTV, or "on demand" as though it were a regular user when you login as user "mythtv". (B) 99.9% of updates on Linux do *not* require a reboot and updates, especially security updates, can be scheduled to be install automatically and/or in the middle of the night, if you wish.
As far as keeping your system up-to-date, until last weekend, my MythTV system was running Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, which went out of support in 2013. I just updated it to 10.04. If you're simply using it for a DVR, then it's only pulling XML data from Schedules Direct and keeping updates, even security updates current is not really that important.
MythTV even supports USB and Firewire devices
All makes and models, or is it like the "winmodem" era where Ubuntu has no driver for a lot of the devices out there?
Pretty wide range of support and the drivers are supported natively by Linux. No, not like "winmodem".
Ya, it could possibly be a bit more complicated than a TiVO to build/setup, but I have a friend who had his TiVO blink out - the unit and CableCard lost its pairing - and he spent more time in one evening talking with his cable provider straightening it out than I did maintaining my MythTV system for a whole year.
That said, MythTV also does a whole lot more that most other DVRs. The number of simultaneous recordings is only limited by the system horsepower and number of capture cards installed (I have 2) on the backend (which could also be the frontend). Scheduling 14 days out, a wide range of recording options, able to record only new (or not previously recorded) episodes if you want. Pretty rock-solid commercial skipping (auto or manual) - press a button and skip an entire commercial break. DVD playing, burning and ripping. Store/display photos; store/play videos, music. There are plugins for games, weather, news, movie listings, etc... Control via HTTP. It can even access non-MythTV devices via UPnP.
And it can run all your favorite Linux software. Here are some links:
Now dial down your autism a bit - geesh.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I think many social conservatives will buy the religious channels just to show off when guests come over, or in general to boast that they watch such channels. On the other hand, the "objectionable" channels might have some troubles because people might not want to admit they watch those, even though they actually watch those. With bundling, people can just claim that the "objectionable" channel is there just because it is bundled, I don't actually watch it. I see serious gaps in what people watch on TV, and what they think / admit / plan to watch.
So the "objectionable" channels might need to find alternative ways to make its content available.
Wow why didn't I think of that? Let me just run a fiber cable to the nearest hub. It can't be that expensive can it?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wow why didn't I think of that?
I know, right! Sometimes the most eloquent solution is right under our noses.
Let me just run a fiber cable to the nearest hub. It can't be that expensive can it?
Nope. Not expensive at all. In most markets, Google will charge $300 to do this for you. In some markets they change $30. But if you subscribe to gigabit or gigabit+TV, they'll waive the fee.
A while back I switched to TWC because Verizon DSL was not worth a penny because it never worked right and was slow. TWC worked OK in the first place I lived. I then moved just two houses over and TWC...well....sucked. Internet was slow, TV didn't work right on most channels, on demand never worked. No matter how many times I called and no matter how many times they came they always blamed it on the wiring in the house....until I hooked up a small TV straight to the line coming in. There was severe snow on most of the analog channels and if there is noise on the analog signal there is noise on the digital signal. They tweaked it a bit on their end, but never really fixed it. One fine day I got mail from TWC announcing that the monthly rate will increase by 40$. What for? By sheer coincidence the Verizon FiOS guy knocked at the door the same day and it was an easy sale for him. With FiOS Internet access is faster, I get more TV channels, and phone works fine as well....for about 50$ LESS than what I used to pay for TWC. Verizon isn't heaven on earth, but their stuff at least works. Nobody at TWC should be surprised that they shed subscribers.
Or you can simply use one PC, like I do.
Are you talking about A. watching TV on a (comparatively small) computer monitor, B. doing typical computer tasks on the living room TV, C. carrying a single computer back and forth, or D. something that I haven't thought of?
On just about any system that can run Linux or FreeBSD (and others...). [...] it can run all your favorite Linux software.
If you have one PC, and you replace Windows with Linux or FreeBSD, you keep access to the web but lose access to Win32 applications that happen not to work in Wine. Or is there a backend installer that provides an option to automatically convert a PC's existing Windows installation to a VirtualBox virtual machine, so that the user can use it for the backend, frontend, and existing Win32 apps?
Pretty wide range of support and the drivers are supported natively by Linux. No, not like "winmodem".
Thank you. I was worried that makers of video input devices were avoiding making their hardware compatible with free operating systems because it would threaten whatever DRM "compliance and robustness" certification might apply.
I have a friend who had his TiVO blink out - the unit and CableCard lost its pairing - and he spent more time in one evening talking with his cable provider straightening it out than I did maintaining my MythTV system for a whole year.
Good luck convincing others in your household to stop wanting to watch TV shows that require CableCARD.
Now dial down your autism a bit - geesh.
I wish I could. But I've learned from experience that before I can recommend a free software project to non-technical users, I have to systematically work through the most likely failure modes that I'm aware of so that I don't end up building a reputation for recommending solutions that people find broken. And I'm aware that "systematic" sometimes ends up coming off as "autistic"; above-average systemizing is associated with autism spectrum disorder.
I'm a Unix system programmer/administrator and actually have several PCs in my house... My main PC runs Windows 7 64bit, my development system runs Ubuntu 10.04 - both attached to a 4-port KVM. My MythTV system (2.0Ghz Pentium, 1G RAM, 250GB disk - 80 hours TV recording) runs Ubuntu 10.04 (upgraded from 8.04 last weekend) attached to a 40" Sony Bravia via its VGA port. The MythTV system runs both the front/back ends and the capture cards came with an IR remote to control the MythTV menus, though you can also use a keyboard. The resource utilization seems a bit closer to the edge since upgrading Ubuntu...
As for various mixed Windows / Linux configurations, it simply depends on what's support by the underlying Linux system. I don't play w/mixed installs, so cannot answer that. Beefier hardware obviously gives you more options, like using VMs. I imagine that, given enough horsepower, you could run either Linux/Windows as the base and the other in a VM.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .