Another nail for Cable TV's (all bundled subscription) coffin?

[HFWR]

Science, History, Cooking, Palladia, HGTV, and maybe one movie channel.

Done...

I currently [-]am shaken down for[/-] pay $162, including internet.

 

[Midpack]

Haven't figured out how to get these *easily* so still have cable and HD package:
1) PBS and BBC news
2) PBS series (Masterpiece Theater, Nova, occasional Frontline) on an HD TV screen
3) Baseball playoff series
4) 49ers games
5) DVR to time shift items 1 & 2
6) A few series like "The Profit"

The above plus all the other junk stuff we get now for about $50 above the internet connection which is at 50 Mbps.

We read a lot and watch Netflix DVD's and occasionally some streamed stuff too.

Doesn't solve all your needs, but I hooked up OTA with a cheapo antenna and got 30-40 channels including 4 PBS HD channels and all the major networks in HD. And we're 50 miles from the big city! But I've yet to convince DW...

 

[Walt34]

Like others, DW is the reason we still pay for cable. I haven't watched a TV show in months.

 

[audreyh1]

I am streaming 1080p (vs 1080i) and it gets choppy at times. I end up downloading and watching it at another time.

I'm not sure exactly which 1080 - but we have no trouble at all.

 

[MichaelB]

The largest cable companies are also the largest internet service providers. I have a hard time believing they will sit by passively and provide the bandwidth needed so that content producers can bypass them and stream directly to consumers.

 

[ziggy29]

The largest cable companies are also the largest internet service providers. I have a hard time believing they will sit by passively and provide the bandwidth needed so that content producers can bypass them and stream directly to consumers.

This is, and has been, my biggest objection to the absorption of ISPs by cable companies, especially with net neutrality on the ropes.

 

[photoguy]

Why be ashamed? There's a lot to learn on YouTube, and it isn't all about cats!

When I first heard about unboxing videos I thought it was the stupidest thing. Who'd want to watch someone else open up a new toy Now I find myself checking them out as a form of review.

I have watched several unboxing videos. AND, over the years I have watched quite a few Let's Play videos too! (for video games).

I've watched a few WoW videos too. I don't admit this to my friends who are not gamers. I'm not sure why I still care so much about what other people think (I'm fired I shouldn't care at all).

The largest cable companies are also the largest internet service providers. I have a hard time believing they will sit by passively and provide the bandwidth needed so that content producers can bypass them and stream directly to consumers.

Yeah this had occurred to me as well. Netflix is already paying for access. I'm hoping that either legislation makes this impossible or that the cable companies won't be able to recapture all of their lost revenue and direct streaming reduces prices somewhat.

 

[ziggy29]

Yeah this had occurred to me as well. Netflix is already paying for access. I'm hoping that either legislation makes this impossible or that the cable companies won't be able to recapture all of their lost revenue and direct streaming reduces prices somewhat.

You know, I could probably force myself to be OK with ISPs providing "express service" for an extra fee ***if*** they weren't also in the content provider business. But since they are, it feels like they can engage in restraint of trade and anticompetitive practices by singling out Netflix and Hulu, among others, slowing down the competitors to their cable offerings.

 

[Birdie Num Nums]

Haven't figured out how to get these *easily* so still have cable and HD package:
1) PBS and BBC news
2) PBS series (Masterpiece Theater, Nova, occasional Frontline) on an HD TV screen (As mentioned in another reply, an OTA antenna should get these. I got one for ~$40 at Costco three months ago, and I get nice HD channels, almost 30 of 'em--including all the major local ones, plus.)
3) Baseball playoff series
4) 49ers games (NFL Rewind--all team's season games for less than one of your monthly cable bills. But not live. If you want to watch it live on TV, head to your local sports bar instead!)
5) DVR to time shift items 1 & 2
6) A few series like "The Profit" (Earlier episodes available online?)

The above plus all the other junk stuff we get now for about $50 above the internet connection which is at 50 Mbps.

We read a lot and watch Netflix DVD's and occasionally some streamed stuff too.

It can't hurt to get one of those Costco antennas, to start. If it doesn't do the trick for you, they have a fantastic return policy, as we know.

 

[audreyh1]

What is that Costco Antenna?

We've been just using Internet. I like being able to watch when I want.

 

[Lsbcal]

It can't hurt to get one of those Costco antennas, to start. If it doesn't do the trick for you, they have a fantastic return policy, as we know.

We live in very hilly terrain. I looked into antennas some time ago and concluded it had a low success probability.

 

[Birdie Num Nums]

What is that Costco Antenna?

We've been just using Internet. I like being able to watch when I want.

A Winegard. Here's a link to the non-amplified version. The one I got at Costco is amplified, so it cost about $10 more. I dunno if that non-amplified version would get different channels than the antenna that I have.

If you do get one, it is highly recommended that you try placing the antenna in dozens of different settings--to see which placement delivers the most channels--even if you are satisfied with one placement. And re-scan after every new placement. (You can always go back to that placement.) And, once you are happy with a certain placement of the antenna, about every month thereafter, re-scan the channels on your TV to see if anything has changed since your last re-scan.

 

[audreyh1]

A Winegard. Here's a link to the non-amplified version. The one I got at Costco is amplified, so it cost about $10 more. I dunno if that non-amplified version would get different channels than the antenna that I have.

If you do get one, it is highly recommended that you try placing the antenna in dozens of different settings--to see which placement delivers the most channels--even if you are satisfied with one placement. And re-scan after every new placement. (You can always to back to that placement.) And, once you are happy with a certain placement of the antenna, about every month thereafter, re-scan the channels on your TV to see if anything has changed since your last re-scan.

Thanks.

We were planning to put in an attic powered antenna, but just haven't got around to it. The off-air reception here has worsened considerably over the past year, perhaps because many new homes have been built around us. But it never seems urgent enough. Internet streaming is so nice.

 

[Birdie Num Nums]

We live in very hilly terrain. I looked into antennas some time ago and concluded it had a low success probability.

Did you actually try an antenna, or just looked into it? Also, along with the antenna itself, you could attach a signal booster for about another $40. Eighty bucks total ain't a bad deal, if it works.

 

[ziggy29]

We live in very hilly terrain. I looked into antennas some time ago and concluded it had a low success probability.

Seriously, try TV Fool if you haven't yet. It's as accurate as they come. If you see your stations in the "yellow" or closer, a good outdoor antenna will get them. If they are in the red, adding a preamp to a high-gain outdoor antenna will probably do the trick. Purple will be tougher but occasionally doable with a strong antenna and preamp setup.

TVFool uses precise, address-specific info to find your GPS coordinates and maps that against terrain and the broadcast towers, and it's by far the best tool out there.

 

[Texas Proud]

The $64K question. But like many/most, we never watch about 80% of the [-]garbage[/-] "channels" in our satellite/cable "package." If we could subscribe to just the networks we actually watch/want, it's hard to believe they'll collectively charge more than the total satellite package cost. The networks know that obviously, so it must be in their internet pricing calculus (if not, demand will quickly fix their pricing). It would seem a great opportunity for popular networks to increase revenue while net reducing costs to consumers. And if some of the less popular networks fail, that's as it should be.

Neflix, HBO and others are one thing. As everyone knows, if ESPN ever breaks with cable/satellite subscription, the dragon will truly be unleashed. While there are powerful forces protecting the network status quo, cord cutters continue to increase, so the old model will break down sooner or later...

I think your view on 'demand' is wrong... they still have almost monopoly powers.... and monopoly powers means that they do not have to worry about demand like a normal company...


I would LOVE to buy the channels I want... my bill would go way down... that option is NOT available from any vendor.... hence, I live with one of the bad choices that I do have....

 

[ziggy29]

I would LOVE to buy the channels I want... my bill would go way down... that option is NOT available from any vendor.... hence, I live with one of the bad choices that I do have....

Probably true if you watch less than 10% of the channels available to you. If you watch more than that, it may not help, since in an opt-in, a la carte model you wouldn't pay the 23 cents per channel that you do in a cable package, but probably closer to $5 per month.

Also in the cable package you get religious and home shopping programs which you may not want, but many of them PAY to be carried, thus subsidizing other programming the cable and satellite guys have to pay for.

 

[Lsbcal]

Seriously, try TV Fool if you haven't yet. It's as accurate as they come. If you see your stations in the "yellow" or closer, a good outdoor antenna will get them. If they are in the red, adding a preamp to a high-gain outdoor antenna will probably do the trick. Purple will be tougher but occasionally doable with a strong antenna and preamp setup.

TVFool uses precise, address-specific info to find your GPS coordinates and maps that against terrain and the broadcast towers, and it's by far the best tool out there.

Nice tool there. Looked like for us we'd need a roof mounted antenna. Against the HOA cc&R's here.

 

[Walt34]

Nice tool there. Looked like for us we'd need a roof mounted antenna. Against the HOA cc&R's here.

Even with a roof antenna we wouldn't be much better off so the HOA regs don't really enter into it.

 

[Midpack]

I think your view on 'demand' is wrong... they still have almost monopoly powers.... and monopoly powers means that they do not have to worry about demand like a normal company...


I would LOVE to buy the channels I want... my bill would go way down... that option is NOT available from any vendor.... hence, I live with one of the bad choices that I do have....

You might be right. But I'm sure the music industry thought they didn't have anything to worry about either...like hundreds of other industries that have been reshaped or killed off over the decades. And there are more and more 'cord cutters' and millennial 'cord nevers' every day. Not surprisingly, our generation has been the most likely to succumb to the "almost monopoly'"based on the chart posted earlier.

And I am not suggesting you'll be able to "buy [only] the channels you want" at rates anything like the theoretical unbundled cost of cable/satellite packages - that WON'T happen. But there could definitely be win-win price models that benefit popular channels and consumers.

And I'm also not suggesting it will happen soon or easily, but I think it will eventually.

 

[Texas Proud]

You might be right. But I'm sure the music industry thought they didn't have anything to worry about either...like hundreds of other industries that have been reshaped or killed off over the decades. And there are more and more 'cord cutters' and millennial 'cord nevers' every day. Not surprisingly, our generation has been the most likely to succumb to the "almost monopoly'"based on the chart posted earlier.

And I am not suggesting you'll be able to "buy [only] the channels you want" at rates anything like the theoretical unbundled cost of cable/satellite packages - that WON'T happen. But there could definitely be win-win price models that benefit popular channels and consumers.

And I'm also not suggesting it will happen soon or easily, but I think it will eventually.

Don't get me wrong.... I do see the writing on the wall that they will not have that monopoly power in the future.... but it is because of new delivery systems that are coming out instead of some other company putting in cable with a different model...


Remember, just a few years ago you could not get the internet speed that you can today.... and to your phone no less....


I think that some companies might price themselves out of reach of a lot of people... I might pay $1 per month for say TNT or whatever it is that has a few shows I like.... but I would not pay $5 for it.... heck, they have special football channels that have very high prices.... but I guess enough people sign up for them that they make the money....

 

[Texas Proud]

Probably true if you watch less than 10% of the channels available to you. If you watch more than that, it may not help, since in an opt-in, a la carte model you wouldn't pay the 23 cents per channel that you do in a cable package, but probably closer to $5 per month.

Also in the cable package you get religious and home shopping programs which you may not want, but many of them PAY to be carried, thus subsidizing other programming the cable and satellite guys have to pay for.

I do have more than 10.... but when you look at local etc. I could get it down to that.... at times I will watch a channel for one of the 'home shows', but would not pay for it if I had a choice....


And heck, I do not care if they PAY to be on.... let them... I program in my favorites anyhow, so all the other ones I do not see...


I do not see them charging $5 per month per channel.... just a bit too high... I would bet that a lot of channels would not be on anymore... I know that I pay a lot of 25 cents to ones that I could care less about...


The other thing is that I do NOT get some channels that I or DW want... she really wants animal planet... but I have to go up one or two levels to get it and am not willing to pay that much extra for that one channel I want.... even if I get an extra 100 or so...

 

[Midpack]

Just for fun I looked at how many channels we have and actually watch.

• Our package is called Americas 120, yet it says 190+ channels? We pay just over $70/mo with everything.
• We actually watch 21 of them more than once a year, about 5%.
• There are only 13 we watch regularly.
• So about 95% of the channels could go away and we'd never miss them.

I'd be surprised if they all tried to charge $5-6/mo, some would be less or we'd learn to get by with less than 13.

Remember when we were kids and had about 4 channels (3 networks and PBS)?

 

[imoldernu]

For everyone who believes that television or internet will ever cost less:

 

[photoguy]

Does anybody know how the economics of the channel bundling work? I.e. which channels are getting more under bundling than if they were sold a la carte and vice versa? or is it more of a situation that everyone is paying more than they would if channels were sold separately?

I guess nobody knows for sure as this is a hypothetical but are there any well thought out analyses/simulations on this?