Question's in the title.

I'm sorta shocked that it's been able to sustain itself for this long... in today's age, it just seems like such a flawed business model:
We'll charge you a package price for a product whose majority elements you don't even want, and we'll lobby government to allow pocket monopolies/oligopolies in exchange for offering to maintain obsolete infrastructure that doesn't even *have* to exist anymore.

And yet, it's doing just that. Essentially no evolution seems to have come to the Cable industry.

How long do you think they'll be able to? Anyone with any insight into how that industry is doing?

After having rented for 4yrs, and now assured that this is the place I want to be, I'm looking to buy-- and for the first time ever, I just can't see myself wanting to have cable.

I only really watch 5 or so channels (CNN, MSNBC, SyFy, Animal Planet, and Discovery Channel), and have been successful in finding half of those, streaming online for free. HDMI chord from the hard drive to the TV, plus integrated YouTube app, plus NetFlix..... and bam: all the entertainment I really need.

I loved Cox Cable when I had it, but they're artificially barred from L.A.
Not sure I'd want to settle for AT&T or TimeWarner. This stinks!

Interesting we have just had fibre installed, it's rolling out all over Norway, multiple vendors, digging up the same streets multiple times, twice where I live. Our satalite has been replaced as has our copper ADSL connection, we now get a bundled package with internet and tv.

Until a provider comes out with an a la carte option where you pick the channels you want to watch, I foresee cable dying a slow death. In my place I have cable included with the internet package but I only tune into MSNBC (other channels when something big is happening). I can't opt out of it so I might as well enjoy it, but were I to buy a place and install internet, I'm not sure if I'd add a basic cable package.

Back at my parents' place it's worse. Basic package calls for 99 channels. Out of those, about 20 are scrambled (nothing is shown in those); about 8 are local; you then have about 10 religious channels (which you can't opt out of)...essentially my parents pay cable just to watch TNT, TBS, TWC, VH1, MTV...that's probably about it (the latter two are channels my sister watches).

How long does cable have?

At least 25-30 more years as a profitable business model.

Despite the options which are becoming available in major metro areas, cable / satellite are the only options for much of the US population.

And the companies have done a good job of bundling TV service with high speed internet.

As long as the major suppliers can hold onto their municipal franchises and they don't have a competitor offering ala carte pricing, the other options won't make much penetration of the market.

It will take a full generation for changes in viewing habits and comfort with other options to filter through the market and the business model become unprofitable.

Heck, I see predictions daily that cable and home high speed internet will disappear within two or three years because 5G is going to have us all using our cell phone data plan for all our internet needs.

That phone companies will have to eliminate data limits to stay competitive.

rfields5421 wrote:

How long does cable have?

At least 25-30 more years as a profitable business model.

Despite the options which are becoming available in major metro areas, cable / satellite are the only options for much of the US population.

And the companies have done a good job of bundling TV service with high speed internet.

As long as the major suppliers can hold onto their municipal franchises and they don't have a competitor offering ala carte pricing, the other options won't make much penetration of the market.

It will take a full generation for changes in viewing habits and comfort with other options to filter through the market and the business model become unprofitable.

Heck, I see predictions daily that cable and home high speed internet will disappear within two or three years because 5G is going to have us all using our cell phone data plan for all our internet needs.

That phone companies will have to eliminate data limits to stay competitive.

I work in the industry, and I think that within 10 years the cable companies will basically be ISPs, with only marginal revenue coming from video content and perhaps a bit more from VoIP phone service. That said, the cable companies will have a virtual monopoly on high speed residential internet, as in most cases they are the only ones with a physical connection to homes that can handle high speed internet. WiMax, satellite, and DSL just can't compete with the data throughput and latency of a simple coax cable.

I think the answer is simple. The fact that apartment dwellers are usually not permitted to have satellite dishes means that there is a huge captive market for cable companies in urban areas , hence no real motivation to change their business model.

I have an extreme love/hate relationship with my cable provider (Comcast). On one hand as an ISP they are awesome -- I think my package is for something like 50 mbps and it always works, never seems to slow down and works fine when multiple people are doing high bandwidth stuff like gaming and streaming. I wish they weren't charging me $10/month for the cable modem/wireless router, but honestly I just don't have the time and patience to go about seeing if I can get my own and not have to pay that extra fee.

But on the other hand their business model and customer service SUCKS donkey balls. Case in point I finally upgraded from an old SD 20" CRT TV to a 40" LED HDTV. Hook up the cable box via the coax into the RF in and discover that the picture quality is awful -- 360p, no upscaling on my TV btw, and it just looks bad. So I get on chat with Comcast to see what I would need to do to upgrade my box to one that will output in HD. Well this entire chat takes more than half an hour where at least 70% of the time the rep is trying to sell me on a new package that I don't want only to tell me that if I want an HD box that'll be an extra $10 a month. I was pissed and left a nasty reply and logged off. Why in the hell in 2016, when HD is pretty much a standard thing, are they upcharging for HD (when I also know they are already piping that to my house anyways). Plus their whole pricing model is just insanely frustrating with the promo deals and having to get a new promo pretty much every year when the 12 month deal runs out. I just want one good price and I can accept every year or two if the rate goes up by a couple of percent. They have a local store/office that I can also go to, but right now I just don't have the time to deal with them. Plus having to take the morning off of work to do that just pisses me off.

LAX772LR wrote:

I'm sorta shocked that it's been able to sustain itself for this long... in today's age, it just seems like such a flawed business model:
We'll charge you a package price for a product whose majority elements you don't even want, and we'll lobby government to allow pocket monopolies/oligopolies in exchange for offering to maintain obsolete infrastructure that doesn't even *have* to exist anymore.

Actually I don't really think the bundling of channels is really all that much of an issue -- I've heard that same conversation before and unless going ala carte is really a lot cheaper I don't see people really going for that. I am still one of those people that still likes to flip through the channel guide to see what is one and I don't limit myself to just a handful of channels.

LAX772LR wrote:

How long do you think they'll be able to? Anyone with any insight into how that industry is doing?

I think cable will be around for a very long time, but clearly cable tv is in decline. One way to see this in action is to observe how ESPN, which is the content provider that demands and receives the largest slice of your cable bill, is getting rid of high-priced talent and doing all kinds of other cutbacks.

LAX772LR wrote:

HDMI chord from the hard drive to the TV, plus integrated YouTube app, plus NetFlix..... and bam: all the entertainment I really need.

As someone who cut the cord a while ago, it's not all paradise. There still are a lot of things shaking out in the world of content. You find yourself hopping around a lot to get various streams. I find myself buying a few series that I can binge watch whenever I want, but some series simply aren't for sale from what I can tell. I still have a DVR and record a lot of over-the-air content, mainly PBS and sports. Some content only comes on certain devices (i.e. NFL Replay is not on the Amazon or Roku devices, etc). It seems to me the best thing to do is hook up a PC/laptop to the TV and use a wireless keyboard/touchpad because it seems almost everything has a web based interface, but I haven't done this yet. It seems to me that the web interfaces will be the next thing to go (in favor of silo'd apps such as those on the apple store or google play) but that will probably take a long time.

Keep in mind the media giants are always going to be in competition with each other so this kind of fragmentation is going to keep happening. One of the nice things about cable TV is that so much stuff shows up via the same box and the same interface. One of the terrible things about cable is that they use that single box to enforce bundling to make you buy tons of crap you won't ever watch. To me I'd rather deal with the fragmentation issue than the bundling issue.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Until a provider comes out with an a la carte option where you pick the channels you want to watch, I foresee cable dying a slow death.

That's a good summation, however rolling out an a la carte solution is pretty challenging for cable. They have decades of equipment of varying degrees of capabilities out in the field, most of which is not powerful enough to support that kind of thing. Then they have regulatory influences that say they still need to make all kinds of stuff available anyhow. And also they have their own decades long inertia behind bundling to overcome.

Another big problem for the industry is that businesses and business people get judged on how well they grow businesses, not on how well they oversee a dying business.

rfields5421 wrote:

How long does cable have?

At least 25-30 more years as a profitable business model.

It'll be interesting to see if this holds or not.

Dreadnought wrote:

I work in the industry, and I think that within 10 years the cable companies will basically be ISPs, with only marginal revenue coming from video content and perhaps a bit more from VoIP phone service. That said, the cable companies will have a virtual monopoly on high speed residential internet, as in most cases they are the only ones with a physical connection to homes that can handle high speed internet. WiMax, satellite, and DSL just can't compete with the data throughput and latency of a simple coax cable.

Yes, I agree. Cable has a firm grip on the last mile. Their biggest problem will probably be their own greed. It would not surprise me at all if they didn't find a way to kill the goose laying the golden eggs. There is little love for them in their customer base. That's a hard thing to keep working over time.

alberchico wrote:

I think the answer is simple. The fact that apartment dwellers are usually not permitted to have satellite dishes means that there is a huge captive market for cable companies in urban areas , hence no real motivation to change their business model.

The main threat is via internet streaming rather than satellite, but as above, the cable industry really is in transition from being a tv provider to being an internet provider.

desertjets wrote:

I have an extreme love/hate relationship with my cable provider (Comcast). On one hand as an ISP they are awesome -- I think my package is for something like 50 mbps and it always works, never seems to slow down and works fine when multiple people are doing high bandwidth stuff like gaming and streaming. I wish they weren't charging me $10/month for the cable modem/wireless router, but honestly I just don't have the time and patience to go about seeing if I can get my own and not have to pay that extra fee.

But on the other hand their business model and customer service SUCKS donkey balls. Case in point I finally upgraded from an old SD 20" CRT TV to a 40" LED HDTV. Hook up the cable box via the coax into the RF in and discover that the picture quality is awful -- 360p, no upscaling on my TV btw, and it just looks bad. So I get on chat with Comcast to see what I would need to do to upgrade my box to one that will output in HD. Well this entire chat takes more than half an hour where at least 70% of the time the rep is trying to sell me on a new package that I don't want only to tell me that if I want an HD box that'll be an extra $10 a month. I was pissed and left a nasty reply and logged off. Why in the hell in 2016, when HD is pretty much a standard thing, are they upcharging for HD (when I also know they are already piping that to my house anyways). Plus their whole pricing model is just insanely frustrating with the promo deals and having to get a new promo pretty much every year when the 12 month deal runs out. I just want one good price and I can accept every year or two if the rate goes up by a couple of percent. They have a local store/office that I can also go to, but right now I just don't have the time to deal with them. Plus having to take the morning off of work to do that just pisses me off.

You sound like an ideal candidate for cord cutting, depending on what content you want to have.

You give them back their cable box and buy a cable modem. A quick look at google suggests they're around $70 for a decent one, which means it pays itself off in seven months of cable box rental fees. Presumably your new HD TV has apps on it for the big services such as youtube (free), netflix ($9.99/month, no ads) and perhaps hulu ($11.99/month no ads). Add to that any over-the-air signals you can get (look at https://www.antennaweb.org/ to figure out what you can get with even a simple antenna). That gets you tons of content for $22/month plus whatever comcast charges for internet. In my case I'm doing quite fine with a 6 mbit/sec connection for $49.99. In essence my cable+internet bill went from $175/month to $60/month since i didn't buy hulu, mainly because to me they are largely an extension of cable.

To be fair as I said above I find myself buying a few series for streaming via outlets like amazon but I find myself re-watching these a few times and so they are worth the $20 or so that each series costs. Also I am an Amazon Prime customer and it brings in loads of content that for me is 'free' because I am already buying prime for other reasons.

So there are some frustrations with dealing with the various sources of streaming media but overall it's far less frustrating than dealing with comcast. It felt really good to hand them back their cable box and not paying for tons of channels I never watch.

Dreadnought wrote:

in most cases they are the only ones with a physical connection to homes that can handle high speed internet. WiMax, satellite, and DSL just can't compete with the data throughput and latency of a simple coax cable.

All of the people who predict the end of cable don't understand the physical logistical issues. Billions of dollars were spent putting cable into homes, and in many locations - fiber optic cable.

It is going to take dozens of years before the wireless service providers put up the number of cell towers (which require a cable to each tower) able to provide the number of concurrent connections that cable companies can provide currently.

A properly installed physical cable will always be faster and more reliable than a wireless connection. Wireless/ WiFi always goes to a physical cable at some point.

Yes there are issues with some installations, some providers.

================

Re: a la carte pricing - right now companies like ESPN and FoxNews get a lot of revenue because they get paid for every single customer receiving cable from that provider. Do you think those companies will allow the cable company to pay them less money because only X number of customers want that service? Do you think the content providers like ESPN or Fox will establish their own billing system, or require the cable company to install a billing system that allows the content provider to audit and ensure they are actually getting paid for every purchase subscriber?

Now cable companies do has some of that system in place for extra pay channels. It is not going to be cheap or free to expand that to every channel.

Also content providers like ESPN, Fox, Disney, etc - all require many of the extra 'low value' channels to be carried. i.e. A cable company can't carry FoxNews unless they also carry Fox Business News, FX, FXX, National Geographic, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2 (I don't know if that is an actual requirement - but all those cable channels are owned by the same company which owns Fox News - and a company requiring their multiple products to be bundled is common.)

Plus you are not going to be able to pay $4.50 per month for Fox News alone - Fox would bundle those additional channels - and charge you $7.50 per month for the bundle.

Anyone remember when we had one option, one price and take it or leave service options from the landline telephone company? How breaking up AT&T was going to allow us to get a la carte pricing for the phone services we really used?

Well we've got a la carte pricing for phone service and even cell phone service. Anyone here paying less for landline today than they were paying in 1980? Even inflation adjusted?

A la carte pricing of such service always cost more than the bundles for the vast majority of customers.

rfields5421 wrote:

Well we've got a la carte pricing for phone service and even cell phone service. Anyone here paying less for landline today than they were paying in 1980? Even inflation adjusted?

A la carte pricing of such service always cost more than the bundles for the vast majority of customers.

A different way of looking at things is the music industry, where it's clear most people are paying less for music than they did decades ago. We can debate whether or not that is a good thing, but it is the reality. People went from paying $12-$20 for albums containing a lot of content they didn't want to $0.99 for the one song they really wanted, and IMHO the same thing will eventually happen to the video market, one way or the other.

I just don't see how, with the death of the middle class in the USA, that the norm will continue to be to pay $100-$200 a month for cable TV, when there are so many viable and cheaper alternatives.

And as you are pointing out, it really doesn't make much sense from the cable tv provider's point of view either. They keep having to design new cable boxes and deploy them to the field and keep them on the books till they depreciate. It's a far more sensible model for the customers to just buy their own devices and upgrade them as they become obsolete, just like they do with cell phones.

It's also a far better model for the market. Customer know when they are being taken advantage of, and they don't like it.

We are just now seeing the consumers who've had a smartphone in their hands since infancy enter the market in huge numbers, and the trends will shift. It'll be more about what the new market entrants want than what the old customer base expects, IMHO.

Revelation wrote:

You sound like an ideal candidate for cord cutting, depending on what content you want to have.

You give them back their cable box and buy a cable modem. A quick look at google suggests they're around $70 for a decent one, which means it pays itself off in seven months of cable box rental fees. Presumably your new HD TV has apps on it for the big services such as youtube (free), netflix ($9.99/month, no ads) and perhaps hulu ($11.99/month no ads). Add to that any over-the-air signals you can get (look at https://www.antennaweb.org/ to figure out what you can get with even a simple antenna). That gets you tons of content for $22/month plus whatever comcast charges for internet. In my case I'm doing quite fine with a 6 mbit/sec connection for $49.99. In essence my cable+internet bill went from $175/month to $60/month since i didn't buy hulu, mainly because to me they are largely an extension of cable.

To be fair as I said above I find myself buying a few series for streaming via outlets like amazon but I find myself re-watching these a few times and so they are worth the $20 or so that each series costs. Also I am an Amazon Prime customer and it brings in loads of content that for me is 'free' because I am already buying prime for other reasons.

So there are some frustrations with dealing with the various sources of streaming media but overall it's far less frustrating than dealing with comcast. It felt really good to hand them back their cable box and not paying for tons of channels I never watch.

Ultimately that is what I am going to do. Our existing cable package is a little weird, and made sense when all we had was the old 20" Panasonic that couldn't do digital OTA, it is basically all the OTA channels, plus HBO and internet. When I had my deal it was a good price, now that it has expired that bill looks less good. The other half already has Netflix, and I think Amazon Prime and maybe Hulu that gets played to multiple devices including the PS3 that is connected to the new TV. So it is still the matter of making time to drop the box off at the Comcast store and tell them where to stick it. And then politely ask them about which cable modem/router devices will work that I can buy and how I can get my device activated.

Directions from Comcast on how to activate your own cable modem: https://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-s ... sed-modem/

That's pretty much how it went down for me. Take out the old box, plug in the new one, connect the new one to my laptop via a piece of ethernet cable, connect to comcast's activation page using the given web address, give it my account info and it was on line in minutes.

Comcast's list of approved devices: http://mydeviceinfo.xfinity.com/

How to return your old box without going to the store: https://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-s ... equipment/

You can drop off the old equipment at any UPS store and they will package it and deliver it to comcast for free. They lose money when you get in line to return the box, they'd rather you ship it.

Then you can drop the expensive package and just get internet (and voice if you still need that, but most people are using cells these days) either via their web page or via phone.

I would suggest going with the least costly option you think will work, then move up if it is insufficient. I used a few internet guides ( ref: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 ) to tell me that a HD stream uses around 5.0 mbits/sec (other sites suggest 4.5 mb/s) and given I'm single there is no case where I need to be running more than one stream so the 6 mbit/sec has worked out just fine. EDIT: It looks like comcast has bumped up the bottom teir to 10 mbits/sec at some point in the last year or so, but even the old 6 mbit package was good enough for me. I've never noticed a case where the internet bandwidth has been an issue. Multiple large file transfers definitely run slower but I only do that a few times a year so it's no issue at all. In day-to-day use it's perfectly fine, including when I work from home and connect to my company's VPN.

Revelation wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Until a provider comes out with an a la carte option where you pick the channels you want to watch, I foresee cable dying a slow death.

That's a good summation, however rolling out an a la carte solution is pretty challenging for cable. They have decades of equipment of varying degrees of capabilities out in the field, most of which is not powerful enough to support that kind of thing. Then they have regulatory influences that say they still need to make all kinds of stuff available anyhow. And also they have their own decades long inertia behind bundling to overcome.

Another big problem for the industry is that businesses and business people get judged on how well they grow businesses, not on how well they oversee a dying business.

As far as equipment goes, they do have it. It's just a matter of added programming for it. Right now, many cable providers are giving out a top box to unscramble the signal so that it's set for your TV. This is rather unnecessary since we were told, as soon as the US ceased analog transmission, cable providers didn't need to buy or acquire equipment for the changeover. But anyway...a cable provider could program each top box to unscramble certain channels only. Of course, you could make it so that it's cheaper to get a regular package (less cost per channel) than a smaller group.

einsteinboricua wrote:

As far as equipment goes, they do have it. It's just a matter of added programming for it. Right now, many cable providers are giving out a top box to unscramble the signal so that it's set for your TV. This is rather unnecessary since we were told, as soon as the US ceased analog transmission, cable providers didn't need to buy or acquire equipment for the changeover. But anyway...a cable provider could program each top box to unscramble certain channels only. Of course, you could make it so that it's cheaper to get a regular package (less cost per channel) than a smaller group.

You are correct. I just did some reading and now Comcast requires everyone to have a decryption device, ref: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theat ... -channels/

I presume this means then that any device too old/slow/dumb to perform the decryption is now useless, and I presume these decryption devices must be capable of blocking/unblocking individual channels so they could support a la carte if comcast ever chooses to support it.

I guess I was fooled by helping my mom's neighbor with her cable box last time I was in Florida. That was one very tired box, it took forever to change channels and especially to look at the online guide.

EDIT: It does seem comcast is reacting to streamers. I see they now have a package that has 25 mb/s internet plus 10 channels and hbo for $59.99 and 75mb/s plus 50 channels plus showtime for $69.95, presumably with lots of other charges tacked on as well, but at least it's a start

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. i don't have cable. i turned it off about two years ago. i just use Netflix and amazon or go on line and watch 4 networks for free one week late.on my computer.
that said. i have never been a big fan of t.v. sitcoms, reality t.v. or shows plots. .

i realized some people might think i'm missing out, i think you are burning time. though once in a while. i really enjoy shows if i haven't watch something in a while.

I cut the cable years ago, just the latest symptom of the disinterest I have had in any form of commercial TV for most of my adult life. As I have aged, I have seen less and less on TV that interests me--TV is largely dominated by sitcoms, reality shows, right- or left-leaning news networks, vapid shows and movies, etc. TV just insults the intelligence. I used to be able to get Star Trek in the past, and other programmes from my past have just not been available on TV for years. When I had cable whilst living on my own, I didn't have it for long, as I noticed the lack of stuff to watch despite the huge number of channels and the cost I could no longer justify paying for it.

When I moved here to Denver last year, I didn't even bother buying a TV, much less getting cable. Besides, I had a better use for the space in my apartment--I put a grand piano there so I could keep up my musical skill.

I just use Netflix now (to catch up on 50 years of Star Trek, filling in gaps, as well as other vintage series I rediscovered from my distant youth). I also use YouTube for some of the more interesting videos. I just use wireless Internet, which is fine for me, as I need no cable or phone line. Internet takes care of what I need to do.

SmithAir747

I'm reading some crazy things on this thread, bandwidth limits in 2016 ? 175$/month ???

Cable is already dead here in France, but to be honest it wasn't ever very alive, at most it had a couple millions homes paying a subscription. From 2004 there were already more people getting TV channels through ADSL than through cable.

It's installed in my city as it was a test city, my parents' home could be connected to it, but they never got it, because at first it was only for TV and they barely watched TV. Then in 1999 ADSL became available, 512Kb/s with no bandwidth limit for the most expensive plan (300 francs, not cheap at the time). Local calls not being free in France, any kind of plan was worth it if it meant we could be connected several hours every day.

I've not heard of bandwidth limits in France for at least a decade, and you can get an ADSL plan with 20Mbit/s, unlimited phone calls and plenty of free TV channels for less than 30€/month. You can also get pretty much the same thing with cable if it's available. And of course a TV can get 27 channels free-to-air everywhere, even in apartments, a landlord can't make you subscribe to anything.

Of course nowadays I'm really longing for some fiber !

My connection is FTTC, or fibre to the cabinet.

it gets round the cable issues by being essentially cable to the street box, then uses the copper connection from there to the house. I get 76Mbps unlimited data and pay about £15 for it. All the channels mentioned above can be accessed from my YouView TV box by on-demand streaming as it's connected to the router. My channels package is probably about another £10 a month.

it's a much cheaper way of providing premium content to the end-user and a fast ADSL connection. New developments are potentially going to double that speed over the copper pair. The difference is that the huge infrastructure costs of cable don't need to be recovered from the end-user, and there are less God channels than on satellite asking for thousand dollar donations.

alberchico wrote:

I think the answer is simple. The fact that apartment dwellers are usually not permitted to have satellite dishes means that there is a huge captive market for cable companies in urban areas , hence no real motivation to change their business model.

Perhaps it's a regional thing, but that's not true at all in most of the cities I've lived.

Not only does the current complex I'm in now allow satellite dishes, but looking out my window, just about all of the complexes in this area have them.

I think Cable's hold on the end consumer is getting rather tenuous. Most folks I know would rather spend the time to cycle through a Netflix binge than wait for network tv shows. The only thing holding on is the distribution deals studios have made with particular networks. I think once Apple , Amazon, Google, or Netflix makes the break into live sports, all bets are off. I think Dreadnought is correct that eventually the Cable companies will be little more than ISP's if they continue on their current path, but that is why the Cable companies still have interests in Hulu and others are purchasing network catalogs.

Before their expected impending doomsday, I do wonder if at least *one* of the traditional cable providers will finally attempt to give people what they've been very loudly demanding for decades: an a-la-carte cable package.

Set a minimum number of channels, if they must.
I'm sorta in disbelief that they'd rather slowly die, then even TRY to give the market what it so clearly has claimed it wants.

Revelation wrote:

Directions from Comcast on how to activate your own cable modem: https://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-s ... sed-modem/

That's pretty much how it went down for me. Take out the old box, plug in the new one, connect the new one to my laptop via a piece of ethernet cable, connect to comcast's activation page using the given web address, give it my account info and it was on line in minutes.

Comcast's list of approved devices: http://mydeviceinfo.xfinity.com/

How to return your old box without going to the store: https://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-s ... equipment/

You can drop off the old equipment at any UPS store and they will package it and deliver it to comcast for free. They lose money when you get in line to return the box, they'd rather you ship it.

Then you can drop the expensive package and just get internet (and voice if you still need that, but most people are using cells these days) either via their web page or via phone.

I would suggest going with the least costly option you think will work, then move up if it is insufficient. I used a few internet guides ( ref: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 ) to tell me that a HD stream uses around 5.0 mbits/sec (other sites suggest 4.5 mb/s) and given I'm single there is no case where I need to be running more than one stream so the 6 mbit/sec has worked out just fine. EDIT: It looks like comcast has bumped up the bottom teir to 10 mbits/sec at some point in the last year or so, but even the old 6 mbit package was good enough for me. I've never noticed a case where the internet bandwidth has been an issue. Multiple large file transfers definitely run slower but I only do that a few times a year so it's no issue at all. In day-to-day use it's perfectly fine, including when I work from home and connect to my company's VPN.

Thanks for all that info, I've seen the approved devices list before for the cable modems. Frankly it is more of having the time to do all that stuff right now, and my time is at more of a premium these days. I'd still prefer to drop stuff off at the local office even for the simple fact of getting the return receipt for the equipment.

LAX772LR wrote:

Before their expected impending doomsday, I do wonder if at least *one* of the traditional cable providers will finally attempt to give people what they've been very loudly demanding for decades: an a-la-carte cable package.

Set a minimum number of channels, if they must.
I'm sorta in disbelief that they'd rather slowly die, then even TRY to give the market what it so clearly has claimed it wants.

I think in large part the cable companies are depending on older folks who maybe less inclined to go into streaming or just want something relatively simple and easy to get their TV programming. Ultimately that is a stupid move. If their pricing models and customer service were better I think in the long run people would be more inclined to stay with them. Again I cannot emphasize just how awful my cable/internet providers customer service is. Online or over the phone sends you to some call center in India or the Philippines and they are pressured to sell new packages, so that's exactly what they do. Now if you do stuff in person you usually get a satisfactory result but it can be a serious pain in the butt to do that. I'd honestly rather go to the MVD on the last day of the month than deal with Comcast most of the time.

desertjets wrote:

Frankly it is more of having the time to do all that stuff right now, and my time is at more of a premium these days.

Sure, no problem, glad to help in any way I can.

Since we're being frank, I have to admit that I get a perverse joy out of helping people cut the cord.

As you say, everything to do with dealing with Comcast and Big Cable is an exercise in frustration.

desertjets wrote:

I'd still prefer to drop stuff off at the local office even for the simple fact of getting the return receipt for the equipment.

Yep, that makes sense.

desertjets wrote:

I'd honestly rather go to the MVD on the last day of the month than deal with Comcast most of the time.

Sooner than later I hope....the ONLY reason we still have Comcrap is because of sports. In the Western Washington area to watch baseball of soccer, you need cable....and forget about streaming....if there is a local "blackout" yer screwed. Here is what I really want...ALL of the content that I pay for to be accessible regardless of where I am...Copper cable at home, packets when I am somewhere else...heck with 4G/LTE I can get HD on my laptop and run an HDMI to the TV for REAL 1080p, not the 1080i I get at home!!

Got an email from Comcast today saying they are going to start carrying Netflix very soon. I think this may be cable's way of trying to remain relevant - offer a "one-stop shop" for all the various services eventually (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc) so people won't need either separate devices or multiple subscriptions for the content they want

SmithAir747 wrote:

I cut the cable years ago, just the latest symptom of the disinterest I have had in any form of commercial TV for most of my adult life. As I have aged, I have seen less and less on TV that interests me--TV is largely dominated by sitcoms, reality shows, right- or left-leaning news networks, vapid shows and movies, etc. TV just insults the intelligence. I used to be able to get Star Trek in the past, and other programmes from my past have just not been available on TV for years. When I had cable whilst living on my own, I didn't have it for long, as I noticed the lack of stuff to watch despite the huge number of channels and the cost I could no longer justify paying for it.

When I moved here to Denver last year, I didn't even bother buying a TV, much less getting cable. Besides, I had a better use for the space in my apartment--I put a grand piano there so I could keep up my musical skill.

I just use Netflix now (to catch up on 50 years of Star Trek, filling in gaps, as well as other vintage series I rediscovered from my distant youth). I also use YouTube for some of the more interesting videos. I just use wireless Internet, which is fine for me, as I need no cable or phone line. Internet takes care of what I need to do.

SmithAir747

SmithAir, if I remember correctly you are my age, although you have lived more than 14 lifetimes of pain and suffering from all of your surgeries, for which I always admire you, as I'm not that strong.

But much like you, I have cut the cable, 7 years ago. I only watch things via the internet, and now paying on Hule, CrunchyRoll, and Netflix. I think our total is $25, plus high speed internet at $ 53 with tax, or under $80 per month. When we cut the cable we saved $170 per month. Now, I get 90% of my watchables for an 80% reduction in cost. A good deal IMHO.

I suspect in the next economic downturn, many more cable/dish subscribers will drop off due to cut incomes and costs of survival go up, yet get most programing via streaming or bumming off someone else's connection. .
Channels will have to go or consolidated as ad and subscriber revenues dry up and production costs go up, cable providers will say no to paying higher fees for channels. Like many I want to see 'ala carte' or cafeteria programs choices. I don't want or need Spanish language, 'religious', music, woman's channels, but do want news, science and popular entertainment channels.

ltbewr wrote:

Channels will have to go or consolidated as ad and subscriber revenues dry up and production costs go up, cable providers will say no to paying higher fees for channels. Like many I want to see 'ala carte' or cafeteria programs choices. I don't want or need Spanish language, 'religious', music, woman's channels, but do want news, science and popular entertainment channels.

I suspect the cable companies just have too much inertia to easily transition away from the bundles. A lot of their contracts are written based on 'attach rates' meaning how many subscribers can POTENTIALLY view a channel. In turn that allows the content providers to use such POTENTIAL audience figures when they calculate what they will charge for advertising. That's one reason the bundles have such staying power, but it is such a sham. They have several different ways to figure out exactly how many people are actually watching a program so it really isn't necessary.

To me the only way it will change is if it all blows up, but as mentioned earlier, there is also some inertia on behalf of the subscribers too, but sooner or later they'll stop paying the huge prices too.

I just ran into an article, AT&T Said to Plan Web Streaming as Primary TV Platform by 2020 , at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... rm-by-2020 ... a fair use quote:

AT&T has been looking for ways to respond to online-only TV competitors like Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., which have been luring its customers away with lower-priced alternatives. AT&T acquired satellite-TV operator DirecTV for $48.5 billion last year, and so far in 2016 it’s lost more than 100,000 TV customers.

Initially, DirecTV Now will be aimed at budget-minded consumers, and will stream free for AT&T wireless subscribers. The price of the service has yet to be finalized. If AT&T can get customers to sign up online on their own, it will reduce customer service costs and allow the company to offer the service at a price competitive with Sony Corp., said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing non-public information. Sony’s PlayStation Vue starts at $39.99 for 60 channels and runs as high as $54.99 for more than 100 channels.

Note how these services are marketed based on the number of channels they provide. They just don't get the idea that we don't want to pay for anything other than the streams we want. Also the price given for Sony Vue seems to be quite high, Hulu is around $11.99 a month for the no-commercials service.

Revelation wrote:

I just ran into an article, AT&T Said to Plan Web Streaming as Primary TV Platform by 2020 , at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... rm-by-2020 ... a fair use quote:

AT&T has been looking for ways to respond to online-only TV competitors like Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., which have been luring its customers away with lower-priced alternatives. AT&T acquired satellite-TV operator DirecTV for $48.5 billion last year, and so far in 2016 it’s lost more than 100,000 TV customers.

Initially, DirecTV Now will be aimed at budget-minded consumers, and will stream free for AT&T wireless subscribers. The price of the service has yet to be finalized. If AT&T can get customers to sign up online on their own, it will reduce customer service costs and allow the company to offer the service at a price competitive with Sony Corp., said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing non-public information. Sony’s PlayStation Vue starts at $39.99 for 60 channels and runs as high as $54.99 for more than 100 channels.

Note how these services are marketed based on the number of channels they provide. They just don't get the idea that we don't want to pay for anything other than the streams we want. Also the price given for Sony Vue seems to be quite high, Hulu is around $11.99 a month for the no-commercials service.

Another issue is the rise of the Smart TV. Many TVs will be able to dispense with the box totally by plugging direct into a network cable or connecting to a router wirelessly. An app update plus some kind of plug-in storage like a high capacity USB key and the case for a standalone TV box goes away. Putting pay TV onto a streaming platform makes it much more compatible with these new generation 4K enabled devices without needing to completely replace the box with new technology.

I've got a TV box but it'll only handle 1080i at most. I can connect the TV direct to the network and watch stuff on Amazon or Netflix in full 4K by bypassing it.

I don't spend a lot of time watching cable TV. Cable news is for the most part mediocre, low brow, and aimed for people with low attention spans and get bored easily without a sensational "breaking news" segment every half an hour so not more than a few minutes for me. Other cable genres are not that good either but I do watch plenty of Science Channel and some Smithsonian, NatGeo, Travel, Destination America, HBO, and others. For the most part I watch from a large set of subscribed YouTube channels that I have I have over 100 subs.

Cable cutting in my generation is the norm. It's pretty crazy to see the amount of young adults who only have an internet hookup, and no cable tv. I've tested it out myself for a bit, signing up for Hulu, and using my Netflix/Amazon subscriptions. And honestly, it worked out really well for a period of time. But it all comes back to one thing, sports.

I'm by no means a die hard sports fan. I can't tell you how many pass yards Tom Brady had last year or what Derek Jeter's lifetime batting average was, but I enjoy unwinding with sports on tv. All summer I end my day by putting on the Minnesota Twins, and just unwinding. Not having that was truly the hardest part of cutting the cord. And the tough part is I have trouble justifying the cost of buying the packages for each sport. I don't want to spend several hundred dollars a sport to watch one team. I want to watch the Yankees, but I couldn't give a crap about the Marlins. I want to watch the Wild, but they're blacked out because I live too close. I want to watch the Patriots, but I'm not bending over to take the cost to watch 16 games.

What I wish these sports and cable companies would realize is that they are almost forcing people to pirate their content because of the insane cost. I get they are running a business, and the goal is to make money. But as people in my generation start to enter the workforce, you have to wonder how their revenue streams will look if they don't provide more options to view that content.

But even with losing sports, I'm still seriously considering dropping it. I'm not sure what I'm going to do for my sports cravings, but I'm done shelling out 150 a month.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

But even with losing sports, I'm still seriously considering dropping it. I'm not sure what I'm going to do for my sports cravings, but I'm done shelling out 150 a month.

The big kicker is you need to make $200 to $250 per month to pay the after tax cost of $150 for cable. No way! As a GenXer I manage Millenials and always bring up the "pre-tax" dollars you need to earn, just to burnish just how expensive things like car payment, cable, and eating out are. LOL!

I haven't had cable tv for 10 years and i do not miss it. When i watched the ads on cable tv when i did have it i always think to myself "Everyone wants your money". I was so sick of it. I don't even miss the commercials.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

What I wish these sports and cable companies would realize is that they are almost forcing people to pirate their content because of the insane cost. I get they are running a business, and the goal is to make money. But as people in my generation start to enter the workforce, you have to wonder how their revenue streams will look if they don't provide more options to view that content.

But even with losing sports, I'm still seriously considering dropping it. I'm not sure what I'm going to do for my sports cravings, but I'm done shelling out 150 a month.

It's funny how sports used to be the working class pastime, but now the costs are so high they're driving away the working class along with younger market entrants. Even people who can afford it think twice about it since it's so expensive.

It's not just the owners, it's also the players. When they sign contracts for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, all that money has to come from somewhere, and a lot of it is from TV licensing fees that come directly out of your cable bill, and, ironically enough, out of the bills paid by many people who don't give a damn about sports!

That's why we see bundling, it gets a lot of people to pay for things they never watch. It's why I think the league will be taking a big hit over time. People will eventually smarten up and stop paying for things they don't watch. The technology to do a-la-carte is simple, what's needed is the will to use it. The big problem is that you'll then see what it really costs to pay for a subscription to a team's games without all those other people paying in as well. It'll be a huge case of sticker shock. The whole economics of sports will need to make a major change, and my bet is the one that will take the biggest hit will be the players.

In my case the only sport I watch regularly is the NFL, and I get it over the air. It would suck to be a fan of baseball since so few of the games are over the air these days. In the old days I'd listen to the call on the radio while I was reading a book. Maybe you should give that a try.

When I watch TV, the commercial breaks seem outrageously long. I haven't watched one full TV program on commercial TV in probably 5 years. Probably never will again.

I still can't wrap my head around the triple digits figures I'm reading in this threat.

I simulated a satellite subscription (as I'm not too familiar with the matter, I didn't even have a TV at home until I was 10) and the only way to go past 100€/month is to take every option including X-rated channels. The medium package is 40€/month with already plenty to watch for all the family, and for all the channels you can dream of it's 80€/month, after that the only remaining options are X-rated channels and packages.

I also see an à la carte option, 25€/month for the base package then you add what you want, 4€ for some channels, 8€ for another (golf), 14€ for beinsports, etc.

And there is a great VOD and replay service included, with apps for computer/phone/tablets/smart TV.

I will not subscribe because I don't watch enough TV and can get what I want by other means, but it's not a terrible deal.

I do not know one person who has cut the cable, not one. If you have a family, as most people tend to do, you will not be watching sports or any programming on a 6 inch screen. Of course if you hang in bars or other public places, you just might manage to avoid the cost. Cable will outlast us all. A few might disagree, or financial problems may cause one not to connect or disconnect. I watch very little TV, but I have it all because when I do watch, I want to watch it on a large screen in my home or in others houses. There is no connection like a hard wired connection, none.

Revelation wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

"A different way of looking at things is the music industry, where it's clear most people are paying less for music than they did decades ago. We can debate whether or not that is a good thing, but it is the reality. People went from paying $12-$20 for albums containing a lot of content they didn't want to $0.99 for the one song they really wanted, and IMHO the same thing will eventually happen to the video market, one way or the other.".

I hear you about the music industry, but that is more of a symptom of how people want their music these days, no? I mean, back in the 'old days', we'd save and save and get our hands on that album, and loved every minute of it (mostly), and found better music than the radio ever played. Back when the album was a work of art in and of itself, not cut into little bits (and mixed down). In the end, now we can just get that one song, but (probably) miss out on something real special on the album. (but that was from a time when there were real musicians and artists out there )

Sorry for the hijack - but seeing as we live in a small market here, it's easier to get the a-la-carte services. And of course, somehow get fleeced for everything in the process. Internet insanely expensive, cable not much better, and no hope for anything better in the near future

WarRI1 wrote:

I do not know one person who has cut the cable, not one. If you have a family, as most people tend to do, you will not be watching sports or any programming on a 6 inch screen. Of course if you hang in bars or other public places, you just might manage to avoid the cost. Cable will outlast us all. A few might disagree, or financial problems may cause one not to connect or disconnect. I watch very little TV, but I have it all because when I do watch, I want to watch it on a large screen in my home or in others houses. There is no connection like a hard wired connection, none.

We don't agree on a lot, but this we do. Yes, It's sad that my cable bill (TV & Internet) is right at $190/month, but like you, when we decide to lie down at night, we want to be able to turn on any tv in the house (7 of them ranging from 32" to 75") and have a lot of options. I would never put a dish on my house for two reasons: 1. They stick out like a sore thumb and look like crap and 2. A hard wired connection doesn't disappoint. No matter the weather, I know my TV and Internet will be chugging right along with AT&T U-verse.

I'd love to be able to pick and pay for only the 10-15 channels we regularly use, but we can't. And sorry, Hulu and Netflix just do not cut it yet. I wish they did, but they don't.

WarRI1 wrote:

I do not know one person who has cut the cable, not one. If you have a family, as most people tend to do, you will not be watching sports or any programming on a 6 inch screen. Of course if you hang in bars or other public places, you just might manage to avoid the cost. Cable will outlast us all. A few might disagree, or financial problems may cause one not to connect or disconnect. I watch very little TV, but I have it all because when I do watch, I want to watch it on a large screen in my home or in others houses. There is no connection like a hard wired connection, none.

We cut the cable 6 years ago now. We have an Apple Mac Mini powering our TV, along with Hulu, Netflix, CrunchyRoll, and Amazon Prime (which we already had for shipping reasons). Plus have local broadcast stations. So we cut our cable bill from almost $200 per month down to $30. We don't get everything, but we get about 85% to 90% of what we did for a fraction of the cost.

I just totaled our savings up and $161 x 70 months has saved us $ 11,270. We did have to buy 2 Mac's, so deduct $1050 from that. Still we've saved $10,000.

WarRI1 wrote:

I do not know one person who has cut the cable, not one. If you have a family, as most people tend to do, you will not be watching sports or any programming on a 6 inch screen.

It seems like you need to 1) meet better people and 2) get a bit more familiarized with modern technology.
It's not hard nor time-consuming to network your home internet between your phone, desktop/laptop, and an internet-ready TV.

Have 42" and 75" screens, both connected to my phone. Two or three pushes of a button on phone, and my favorites/usuals are uploaded, ready to go, and playing on any given screen in the house. Can be at the stove, in bed, or wherever.

Can even restrict it for kids if you have 'em.

LAX772LR wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I do not know one person who has cut the cable, not one. If you have a family, as most people tend to do, you will not be watching sports or any programming on a 6 inch screen.

It seems like you need to 1) meet better people and 2) get a bit more familiarized with modern technology.
It's not hard nor time-consuming to network your home internet between your phone, desktop/laptop, and an internet-ready TV.

Have 42" and 75" screens, both connected to my phone. Two or three pushes of a button on phone, and my favorites/usuals are uploaded, ready to go, and playing on any given screen in the house. Can be at the stove, in bed, or wherever.

Can even restrict it for kids if you have 'em.

I live in a very heavily covered area as far as cell service goes, suburbia so to speak. The cell signal here is very spotty at times, not so with FIOS or cable. Are you telling me that you have no service problems through your cell phone? You must have an antenna in your back yard. I have had ATT, Sprint, and Verizon for cell service, at times and at places they all suck.

WarRI1 wrote:

I live in a very heavily covered area as far as cell service goes, suburbia so to speak. The cell signal here is very spotty at times, not so with FIOS or cable. Are you telling me that you have no service problems through your cell phone? You must have an antenna in your back yard. I have had ATT, Sprint, and Verizon for cell service, at times and at places they all suck.

No, I'm telling you that you sound stuck in the '90s, in terms of understanding the tech that makes it feasible to cut the chord and not miss out.

Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with a cell signal.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I do not know one person who has cut the cable, not one. If you have a family, as most people tend to do, you will not be watching sports or any programming on a 6 inch screen. Of course if you hang in bars or other public places, you just might manage to avoid the cost. Cable will outlast us all. A few might disagree, or financial problems may cause one not to connect or disconnect. I watch very little TV, but I have it all because when I do watch, I want to watch it on a large screen in my home or in others houses. There is no connection like a hard wired connection, none.

We cut the cable 6 years ago now. We have an Apple Mac Mini powering our TV, along with Hulu, Netflix, CrunchyRoll, and Amazon Prime (which we already had for shipping reasons). Plus have local broadcast stations. So we cut our cable bill from almost $200 per month down to $30. We don't get everything, but we get about 85% to 90% of what we did for a fraction of the cost.

I just totaled our savings up and $161 x 70 months has saved us $ 11,270. We did have to buy 2 Mac's, so deduct $1050 from that. Still we've saved $10,000.

We get everything all the time with FIOS or Verizon. One connection, as far as Television, movies or high speed internet. As I said, all according to what you are satisfied with, or can afford of course. As I said before, cell service here is very poor at times. I cannot imagine trying to us it for television, or internet.

LAX772LR wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I live in a very heavily covered area as far as cell service goes, suburbia so to speak. The cell signal here is very spotty at times, not so with FIOS or cable. Are you telling me that you have no service problems through your cell phone? You must have an antenna in your back yard. I have had ATT, Sprint, and Verizon for cell service, at times and at places they all suck.

No, I'm telling you that you sound stuck in the '90s, in terms of understanding the tech that makes it feasible to cut the chord and not miss out.

Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with a cell signal.[/quote


What or who is the source of the signal you pay for and use?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I do not know one person who has cut the cable, not one. If you have a family, as most people tend to do, you will not be watching sports or any programming on a 6 inch screen. Of course if you hang in bars or other public places, you just might manage to avoid the cost. Cable will outlast us all. A few might disagree, or financial problems may cause one not to connect or disconnect. I watch very little TV, but I have it all because when I do watch, I want to watch it on a large screen in my home or in others houses. There is no connection like a hard wired connection, none.

We don't agree on a lot, but this we do. Yes, It's sad that my cable bill (TV & Internet) is right at $190/month, but like you, when we decide to lie down at night, we want to be able to turn on any tv in the house (7 of them ranging from 32" to 75") and have a lot of options. I would never put a dish on my house for two reasons: 1. They stick out like a sore thumb and look like crap and 2. A hard wired connection doesn't disappoint. No matter the weather, I know my TV and Internet will be chugging right along with AT&T U-verse.

I'd love to be able to pick and pay for only the 10-15 channels we regularly use, but we can't. And sorry, Hulu and Netflix just do not cut it yet. I wish they did, but they don't.

We do agree on this for sure. Of course they are screwing us royally, but there is a price for everything. I also would not put a dish anywhere. The leaner bundles are sorely needed.

WarRI1 wrote:

What is the source or provider of signal.

Well, if you want to know: T-Mobile...

...but again, I must reiterate:

LAX772LR wrote:

Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with a cell signal.

LAX772LR wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

What is the source or provider of signal.

Well, if you want to know: T-Mobile...

...but again, I must reiterate:

LAX772LR wrote:

Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with a cell signal.

How does the signal arrive at your Television or computer. What is the vehicle of delivery? Are you able to get a Hi Def picture on your Televisions? I have looked at the T Mobile plans, there is some limitations on data usage is there not? An extra charge for 1080 signal as well as a time limit?