Is Cable going the way of the Dinosaur

[kdonnel]

Broadcast radio is not going anywhere for the long foreseeable future, not least of which because it is Federally mandated as the basic method of US emergency communication. Streaming does not work in conditions of widespread communications failure, but radio does. You can broadcast with no infrastructure at all, just a car battery.

Printed newspapers have remained for similar legislative reasons, required legal classified advertisements.

I imagine that online legal postings will replace printed ones and that someone in the future will realize that the EBS is not needed.

If the world is broken to the point where the president can not say what he wants to say over TV because it is non functional, any instructions given by the EBS will be pointless because society will have already collapsed.

Cable, satellite, radio, and newspapers, all will be irrelevant.

 

[wenrob]

My kids(young adults 16 and 20) and their friends have mentioned they have never used their own money to buy a CD.

They are very happy with the music leasing model and would prefer paying Apple Music or Spotify or Pandora monthly forever over having to physically own a CD.

It is a big mental shift to accept that there is not anything physical you own, you just own a license to view/listen.

I think that’s in part why I still buy Blu Rays. They won’t suddenly become unavailable due to some licensing snafu. I have kept all of my CDs as well even though they’re all ripped and downloaded to my phone. I haven’t bought a new album in years but if I did it would probably be in CD format. I tend to listen to the same stuff I have for years and really have no interest in anything new so subscribing to a service for stuff I already own would be pointless. Plus I’d have to redo all my playlists, lol.

That’s funny you say that about your kids because my DD and her friends are all about vinyl and CDs. They’re pretty big into the music scene. I haven’t bought her a CD since she was a little kid, I wouldn’t know where to start. My younger two (13) however own very little physical media aside from books. We have the Google Play family plan for them and I hand out iTunes cards for every holiday and birthday.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I hope not as it is my only source for my landline.

 

[bigbabyblues]

You are saying there is cable companies in the USA that doesn’t have fast internet In the areas they have cable?

Yes, there are. My ILs live about 5 miles from us. They have satellite TV but they cannot get high-speed internet in their area. FIL has called and called every internet provider he can find, and they all say they "can't" provide it to him. He has offered to pay to have it run out there, whatever it would take from the end of the main road to his house, which is about 2 miles, and nothing. The provider he has now has been the best one, but it isn't high-speed and the quality comes and goes. In the summer, their internet is terribly slow because the receiver can't get a signal from the tower or whatever it gets the signal from because of the trees. They can't stream anything out there at all.

 

[dclpluto]

Yes, there are. My ILs live about 5 miles from us. They have satellite TV but they cannot get high-speed internet in their area. FIL has called and called every internet provider he can find, and they all say they "can't" provide it to him. He has offered to pay to have it run out there, whatever it would take from the end of the main road to his house, which is about 2 miles, and nothing. The provider he has now has been the best one, but it isn't high-speed and the quality comes and goes. In the summer, their internet is terribly slow because the receiver can't get a signal from the tower or whatever it gets the signal from because of the trees. They can't stream anything out there at all.

But can they get cable? Satellite tv is not cable. I asked is there places in the USA that can get cable but cannot get high speed internet.

 

[tvguy]

But can they get cable? Satellite tv is not cable. I asked is there places in the USA that can get cable but cannot get high speed internet.

Yes, there are. My ILs live about 5 miles from us. They have satellite TV but they cannot get high-speed internet in their area. FIL has called and called every internet provider he can find, and they all say they "can't" provide it to him. He has offered to pay to have it run out there, whatever it would take from the end of the main road to his house, which is about 2 miles, and nothing. The provider he has now has been the best one, but it isn't high-speed and the quality comes and goes. In the summer, their internet is terribly slow because the receiver can't get a signal from the tower or whatever it gets the signal from because of the trees. They can't stream anything out there at all.

Satellite high speed internet is available everywhere in the country. It is pricey though, but a lot cheaper than offering to pay for a cable company to run service in remote areas.
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/best-satellite-internet-providers/

 

[dclpluto]

Satellite high speed internet is available everywhere in the country. It is pricey though, but a lot cheaper than offering to pay for a cable company to run service in remote areas.
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/best-satellite-internet-providers/

Satellite high speed internet is not high speed. You won’t be able to stream with it.

 

[bigbabyblues]

But can they get cable? Satellite tv is not cable. I asked is there places in the USA that can get cable but cannot get high speed internet.

Sorry, I missed that. No, I don't believe that they can get cable. It only goes as far as the internet does, which is about 2 miles away.

 

[tvguy]

Satellite high speed internet is not high speed. You won’t be able to stream with it.

I have no first hand experience.
However a quick Google search of "can you stream with satellite internet" says you can.

 

[dclpluto]

I have no first hand experience.
However a quick Google search of "can you stream with satellite internet" says you can.

My parents have it because they cannot get cable. It’s way too slow.

 

[slpeters]

Whoa--and here I am thinking I could never live somewhere without an opera company and the ability to order Thai food in the middle of the night. Never even thought about making sure you could get the internet there... LOL

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Does anyone else remember, when satellite offered 100s of channels for free? It didn't take long for that to change. Streaming may be cheaper now, but they'll start charging more, if they're the only game in town. If you want to watch more than what you can get on antenna, you're going to eventually have to pay more for it. If satellite & cable go under, streaming will become much more expensive. No one gives away services for free or cheap, unless they have to in order to build up their business.

 

[wenrob]

Does anyone else remember, when satellite offered 100s of channels for free? It didn't take long for that to change. Streaming may be cheaper now, but they'll start charging more, if they're the only game in town. If you want to watch more than what you can get on antenna, you're going to eventually have to pay more for it. If satellite & cable go under, streaming will become much more expensive. No one gives away services for free or cheap, unless they have to in order to build up their business.

At least with streaming you get to put together your own “package” and are not saddled with 100s of channels you don’t want in order to get the ones you do.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

At least with streaming you get to put together your own “package” and are not saddled with 100s of channels you don’t want in order to get the ones you do.

That's true, but you can't currently purchase all channels available through satellite or cable individually through streaming. For many channels, you still need to subscribe to one of those. Everyone would like to be able to cut the cord & pay per channel. That's simply not an option. If it ever comes to that, all channels will become much more expensive.

 

[sam_gordon]

Does anyone else remember, when satellite offered 100s of channels for free?

Are you talking about the big (3-4 meter) dishes that people could tune in what they want? You can still use those and pick up a lot of stations and pay nothing after your upfront cost. Program providers started "scrambling"/encoding their feeds so people would have to pay for them.

I don't believe the satellite TV companies (Dish, Direct) ever gave out free systems.

 

[SteveH]

I haven't had cable since around 1995. Stayed with DISH for years, then they lost me as a customer when HD came out, jumped to DirecTV then later back to DISH. I hate the satellite games as much Cable.

About a year ago we kissed Satellite good-bye and jumped on to the streaming. I watch virtually no live TV other then PAC-12 Football. So for me it's been fine. Took my wife a bit but after trying out DirectTV Now we ended up using Hulu and Sling for Football, which we activate and cancel when we don't need it.

The best thing about Sat/Cable was DVR and skipping commercials, but they priced themselves out of the market. I don't want to give a dime of my money to trash channels that they throw at you. I really want to only pay for what I want. So for the price we pay now I'm very happy, it cut our bill down by almost $100/month - for that savings I have no desire to go back.

 

[kdonnel]

At least with streaming you get to put together your own “package” and are not saddled with 100s of channels you don’t want in order to get the ones you do.

It’s those hundreds of channels you don’t want that subsidize the ones you do want.

TV works like healthcare.

You needs lots of healthy people paying insurance premiums to subsidize the unhealthy.

You need lots of people paying for channels they don’t want so they are affordable for the few who really want them.

As much as people want to be able to build their own bundles they don’t understand the long term consequences.

Streaming is going to end up more expensive then the fat bundles cable and satellite offer.

 

[wenrob]

It’s those hundreds of channels you don’t want that subsidize the ones you do want.

TV works like healthcare.

You needs lots of healthy people paying insurance premiums to subsidize the unhealthy.

You need lots of people paying for channels they don’t want so they are affordable for the few who really want them.

As much as people want to be able to build their own bundles they don’t understand the long term consequences.

Streaming is going to end up more expensive then the fat bundles cable and satellite offer.

I understand how it works, I just don’t like it. I’ve never been one for premium channels but in order for me to get things like TV Land or Food Network I have to go up the next tier and then have to wade through 100s of channels to get to them. At the moment I could probably save a ton by just going with some combo of Netflix/Prime/Hulu and add on AT&T Sportsnet for hockey. Anything I’d want from the premium channels (and thus far that’s been zero) I can get in other forms at a later date. For someone like me it would be no big thing. It’s the people who feel they need all the top tier stuff and all the sports channels who will find themselves paying a premium. Who knows, maybe people won’t mind if they don’t have to wade through all the crap.

 

[disneychrista]

Cable/Satellite is going the way of the "landline." My youngest daughter almost exclusively watches Netflix.

 

[neverlandsky]

It was way cheaper for us to bundle very basic cable with unlimited internet data for $98 a month. 2 teens in the home, our internet data is huge monthly. Some companies are starting to charge for internet data usage monthly because of streaming.