A new (and likeable) cable provider

[MichaelB]

Looks like Apple is preparing to compete against cable companies. Apple TV 'skinny' package likely to accelerate cord cutting - LA Times

Quote:

The tech giant is in negotiations with major television companies to offer a "skinny" package of channels that would include ABC, CBS and Fox Broadcasting, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. Apple wants to roll out the service in time for the new fall shows in September.

[pb4uski]

That would be perfect for us since the main reason for having satellite is that we can't get the majors OTA.

However, unless the skinny package includes HGTV it will be a tough sell to DW.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski That would be perfect for us since the main reason for having satellite is that we can't get the majors OTA. However, unless the skinny package includes HGTV it will be a tough sell to DW.

Same here, there are about 20 channels we'd like to have. But Apple's entrance may eventually lead to more options for all of us, so it still may be 'good news.' And ESPN and several others seem to be thinking about various more a la carte distribution/payment models. We'd be happy to pay the channels we want more as long as the total is less than the 120+ bundles with 80% garbage channels we never watch. Those interested in the channels we're not interested in, are welcome to pay for them...

Fingers crossed, not holding my breath.

[Bestwifeever]

Apple can easily get a slice of the market (and more) but it might not save us that much, per the article:

Quote:

People still would have to turn to cable and phone companies for their Internet service, some of which tack on fees if users exceed established data caps. This could be easy to do when users are spending hours streaming TV shows and movies. Cable TV distributors also are expected to fight back by making their bundles of Internet and TV channels "economically attractive as a way to retain consumers," Nomura Securities analyst Anthony DiClemente said. Switching to a broadband-only package might save customers about $30 to $50 a month at current promotional rates, but adding Apple's Web TV Service, Netflix and HBO Now "quickly erodes those savings," DiClemente said.

[ERD50]

If we could get the Food Network at a reasonable price, DW would be so happy. That's the one thing about not having cable that she really wants. I record a few OTA cooking shows for now with the PVR, that helps, but I guess it's not THE Food Network.

-ERD50

[timo2]

I'm not in the apple cult, so I'm just hoping that apple tv doesn't start restricting my present choices through exclusive agreements with the providers.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Looks like Apple is preparing to compete against cable companies. Apple TV 'skinny' package likely to accelerate cord cutting - LA Times

Good to know. AppleTV streaming works extremely well for us so we're always happy to see new "channels" available.

Off air isn't working for us these days. It did at first, but the constant hew buildings added around us keeps worsening off-air reception (and cellphone too). We haven't tried putting up an antenna yet, mainly because we're not really watching those broadcast channel anyway. We like watching programming on her own which basically require streaming.

Quite a bit of prime time broadcast programming is available on Hulu already. Those look like the same companies involved in this Apple deal - they own Hulu. So this seems redundant. Redundancy in offerings is OK!

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by timo2 I'm not in the apple cult, so I'm just hoping that apple tv doesn't start restricting my present choices through exclusive agreements with the providers.

You never know how things will work out, but I expect Apple is only have limited time exclusivity. I doubt any channel/network wants to be tied to Apple for too long.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever Apple can easily get a slice of the market (and more) but it might not save us that much, per the article:

I think DeClemente is ignoring the huge differences in pricing structure here. There is a huge difference between being locked into a bundle that costs $150 a month, and being able to pick and choose services individually on a month to month basis that only cost $8 to $15 per month each. I probably won't subscribe to HBO unless there is some content of interest that is not available on my other services. And I'll probably use it for a limited time in that scenario.

[W2R]

Right now I just don't have any interest in paying anything for TV, because I get a zillion channels OTA. Sure, I liked HGTV but after not having it for 10 months honestly I wouldn't pay two cents for it.

I think the present television providers have shot themselves in the foot by alienating so many of us with insanely high prices. I don't feel too sorry for them, though, because my cable internet charges are shooting upwards and I guess that they plan to make money from that.

As long as my OTA offerings are the same, I'm not going back to any TV provider. I already get the major networks including Fox. I really don't watch TV very much any more, and I love the way that this has opened up so much free time in the evenings.

[bizlady]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski That would be perfect for us since the main reason for having satellite is that we can't get the majors OTA. However, unless the skinny package includes HGTV it will be a tough sell to DW.

SLING is another new service, and I believe it does include HGTV

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I think DeClemente is ignoring the huge differences in pricing structure here. There is a huge difference between being locked into a bundle that costs $150 a month, and being able to pick and choose services individually on a month to month basis that only cost $8 to $15 per month each.

This is a good point. Cable providers have very effectively increased the total monthly bill by removing the low cost bundle options and adding lots of fees not related to programming, such as DTA and hi-def. Apple can offer a low cost bundle that might be of interest to younger folks who aren't current subscribers. That same offering might be just the thing for many members here who can find complementary offerings based on streaming.

One thing for sure, competition is badly needed in this area.

[walkinwood]

I think all this cord-cutting is missing a major point. We still have a cord that we can't cut - its the internet connection that is owned, in most places, by the same crappy "cable" company.

I just went through my annual tussle with Comcast to keep them from slyly increasing my monthly fee. They just SUCK! The only alternative we have is from an even more expensive (after the first year discount) service from CenturyLink, which doesn't get glowing reviews either.

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkinwood I think all this cord-cutting is missing a major point. We still have a cord that we can't cut - its the internet connection that is owned, in most places, by the same crappy "cable" company. I just went through my annual tussle with Comcast to keep them from slyly increasing my monthly fee. They just SUCK! The only alternative we have is from an even more expensive (after the first year discount) service from CenturyLink, which doesn't get glowing reviews either.

Exactly, that was my point too and no doubt DeClemente's too.

Google is working on an alternate Internet service in a few locations (its page for Austin: https://fiber.google.com/cities/austin/).

[steelyman]

Comcast's internet service in my Illinois location was terrible. I needed a reliable connection big time for my job, things like multiple people putting together grant proposals with tight deadlines from across the US and in Europe/Asia.

There is rock-solid Internet connectivity from my campus, so I set up a little script that sent a ping (like a "hey, are you there?") from my office workstation to home every minute, 24 hrs a day, and let it run a while (over a month). At its worst, my home connection was up less than 20% of the time!

Yeah boys, what about that blindingly fast connection? They couldn't fix a thing. They just looked at the graphs/logs I'd generated (excellent use of my work/home time, you know?).

I ended up going DSL in IL, supposedly a downgrade but if the connection isn't working, you're getting 0 Mb/s.

[robnplunder]

Likeable cable provider sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robnplunder Likeable cable provider sounds like an oxymoron to me.

The fees are what burn me. My package is $120.... $10 for DVR, $10 for HD, and $7 each for the 3 boxes, $6 insurance... So over a third has nothing to do with the programming... I miss my cable days where I could splice and rig all Tvs to one box and watch anything I wanted on all the Tvs without the fees.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ExFlyBoy5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkinwood I think all this cord-cutting is missing a major point. We still have a cord that we can't cut - its the internet connection that is owned, in most places, by the same crappy "cable" company. I just went through my annual tussle with Comcast to keep them from slyly increasing my monthly fee. They just SUCK! The only alternative we have is from an even more expensive (after the first year discount) service from CenturyLink, which doesn't get glowing reviews either.

Yep, although slowly we are seeing where some municipalities are adding internet to the mix of utilities. Longmont, Colorado is an example. They have 1 GIG (yes, GIG) service for $50 a month. You can also get 25mps for $40 a month. I *think* they also have (or will soon have) WiFi spots all around the public parks and what not. I do think in the next 10 years, a lot of the internet will be accessible through hotspots all over the place. Perhaps the likes of Google will help with the completion. Of course, we now have "net neutrality" that will surely change the game in some form or fashion.


http://longmontcolorado.gov/departme...s-and-services

On the subject of cable, I hate that so much of the cost is tied to sports. I really NEVER watch sports and would GLADLY take a nice cost cut if they deleted EVERY SINGLE sports channel on my subscription!

[sheehs1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkinwood I think all this cord-cutting is missing a major point. We still have a cord that we can't cut - its the internet connection that is owned, in most places, by the same crappy "cable" company. I just went through my annual tussle with Comcast to keep them from slyly increasing my monthly fee. They just SUCK! The only alternative we have is from an even more expensive (after the first year discount) service from CenturyLink, which doesn't get glowing reviews either.

I just went thru the same with Charter. My bill for internet, T.V. and land line phone is now over $170.00/month. That does not include my Verizon Wireless bill ($64) I have 3 T.V.'s in various rooms so need 3 boxes for the T.V.'s to function. Hate this…and it sure is a hassle just thinking about switching all around.

I have gotten no where with Charter the last 2 years. Was told they no longer have a "Customer Retention" department. Go figure.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan The fees are what burn me. My package is $120.... $10 for DVR, $10 for HD, and $7 each for the 3 boxes, $6 insurance... So over a third has nothing to do with the programming... I miss my cable days where I could splice and rig all Tvs to one box and watch anything I wanted on all the Tvs without the fees. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah - I loved the extra monthly charges for the boxes, for more than one physical setup, and for "HD" which was laughable as so few of the cable channels were available in HD.

Now you buy your own box or two, and just buy programming.

You do have to have sufficient Internet bandwidth and that costs too.