Future of TV? what do you think?

[Volznut]

Today Comcast bought out TW. Basically cable is becoming a monopoly, but it can't last. They're not really providing what the public wants, and more innovative companies like Google, Apple, youtube (part of google) are seeing opportunities.

What's your line of thinking?

I think cable companies and Sat TV are going to have to change a lot, or they're going to bite the dust eventually. Right now we have to buy packages and have tons of channels we don't really want. The public really wants a-la-carte TV. Already some people have begun dropping sat tv and cable tv in favor of hulu, netflix, apple TV, etc. I think once the major networks, ESPN, and some other major channels that people watch start streaming themselves and charging for their service, and high streaming speeds become available anywhere and are affordable, our current system goes down and channels no one watches go bye-bye.

That's the free market system, right? Not this nonsense we have now, paying a service provider for a package of channels, out of which we only watch maybe 10-12?

[murfvol]

Cable companies are a middle man. Eventually those are eliminated.

[Creek Walker]

Was thinking about this earlier today. There's no doubt in my mind that the future of TV is going to rest in the hands of the very innovators you mentioned — Amazon, Google, and some others that will spring up.

[Volznut]

well, it is the only industry I can think of where they don't care what the consumer wants, they dictate to them what they want them to watch at the price they want you to pay. A monopoly can do this I guess. I go to a restaurant, look at the menu, and decide what I want, I don't let them give me a sample of what food they want to sell me, which may have one dish I want.

The companies that can figure out how to give the consumer what they want at a fair price will be the winners here. The govt. needs to look into the cable companies for monopolizing. They also control internet data. 

[Black Diamond Vol]

I think the biggest impediment right now is the fact that in most towns, the cable company also controls broadband access, and they make it cost prohibitive to have one without the other.  Most sports events can be streamed live online, and most series can be streamed the next day over their respective network's website.  You can get movies and cataloged content over Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.  And even if you don't have a TV streaming device per se (Apple TV, Roku, etc.), you can still buy a Google Chromecast for 35 bucks that will wirelessly beam anything on your computer to your TV.  

So if you could just separate the cable providers from the broadband providers, or at least outlaw their "bundling" practices that make it nearly impossible to have one without the other, I think we'd be well on our way to TV freedom.

[wtkvol]

for content. Without content you have nothing to put on whatever devices you create.

[BanditVol]

I will say personally that I am fed up with cable/satellite for all the reasons people are.  No, I don't like being forced to carry 1000 shopping channels, etc.

But I will also say this...I often find interesting shows or movies or other content on channels I never would have requested to begin with.  So that's not a bad thing to have those.

That's the only reservation I have about going a la carte...don't know what I might be missing. 

[BGHarper]

With this post I'm now officially the old guy (58 years young) and telling you how hard it was growing up; it wasn't. I'm like the grandparents telling me how many miles they walked to school. Heck, I'm still pumped just with the invention of cable and satellite! Back in the day we initially had only three stations with one being the educational station in Alabama. That was it!

 One station's network was ABC, with the other showing either NBC or CBS shows. Heck, we even missed the Beatles first appearance on Sullivan because the local station chose the NBC offering that Sunday night, and I still haven't forgiven them for that huge oversight! Didn't matter anyway really, because the next Christmas I still got my electric Gibson guitar! Long live the Beatles music, and I'm still a huge fan!

BG "Nowhere Man" Harper


Sorry, I had to edit choose to chose, proving without a doubt I never once watched that educational station!

[Clockwork Orange]

A la carte me. I'd like to only pay for the programming that I watch.

But here's what's scary . . . many channels would be forced to bow out because of low revenue. So the available programming would be driven mainly by what the majority wants to see-- the same majority that turned TLC, HGTV, Discovery, History, etc. into cesspools of awful, lowest-common-denominator programming.

I suppose that's happening anyway but it might get worse under a la carte. I want Science, NatGeo, and H2 but would they exist anymore?

[BGHarper]

A la carte me. I'd like to only pay for the programming that I watch.

But here's what's scary . . . many channels would be forced to bow out because of low revenue. So the available programming would be driven mainly by what the majority wants to see-- the same majority that turned TLC, HGTV, Discovery, History, etc. into cesspools of awful, lowest-common-denominator programming.

I suppose that's happening anyway but it might get worse under a la carte. I want Science, NatGeo, and H2 but would they exist anymore?

Same here. The History channel and the others you mentioned are now nothing but reality shows. I'm also a big fan of H2, and both the Science and National Geographic channels. Record many of their shows almost daily. If they were out of business, except for sports, so would my time of TV viewing be out of business!

BG

[BanditVol]

Same here. The History channel and the others you mentioned are now nothing but reality shows. I'm also a big fan of H2, and both the Science and National Geographic channels. Record many of their shows almost daily. If they were out of business, except for sports, so would my time of TV viewing be out of business!

BG

That's another good point..and again, I might not even know about many of those programs if I didn't get them in the package.

[73Volgrad]

Streaming video and all the services you can get are great only if you have high speed internet service.  You can only get streaming video to work if you download a lot of bandwidth. You only get that service if a company has built-out the infrastructure (fiber optic cable system) to allow an outside company to take advantage of it.  Why should Comcast, Time-Warner, etc. invest billions into wiring the country if they cannot recoup the investment. Why should Hula, etc. be allowed to come in and hog bandwidth that they did not pay for? These services have a great business model.  Let someone else build the cable system and come in to offer services on a system you did not pay for. What a sweet deal!!  If they want to offer programming, let them build hard-wired system or let the companies that built them charge a premium for using their system.  Where in the free enterprise system of America does the law allow a company to come in, sell a competing product using the store front that you as a private company build, and then not allow you to limit or at least charge a rate to recover your investment?

You can only be a young one that does not remember the vast wasteland of stupid writing and programming prior to cable to yearn for the good old days. If you want high speed internet service from someone other than a cable company, try to find it in some place other than a big city or dense population center. It will not exist.  There is a physical limit to the information bandwidth in a cable.  The company that invested the money to build it should be the only one to decide how much it costs or how much you can use in a month.  If you suscribe to Hula and use a lot of bandwidth, you should pay more.



 

[Creek Walker]

Streaming video and all the services you can get are great only if you have high speed internet service.  You can only get streaming video to work if you download a lot of bandwidth. You only get that service if a company has built-out the infrastructure (fiber optic cable system) to allow an outside company to take advantage of it.  Why should Comcast, Time-Warner, etc. invest billions into wiring the country if they cannot recoup the investment. Why should Hula, etc. be allowed to come in and hog bandwidth that they did not pay for? These services have a great business model.  Let someone else build the cable system and come in to offer services on a system you did not pay for. What a sweet deal!!  If they want to offer programming, let them build hard-wired system or let the companies that built them charge a premium for using their system.  Where in the free enterprise system of America does the law allow a company to come in, sell a competing product using the store front that you as a private company build, and then not allow you to limit or at least charge a rate to recover your investment?



 

The cable companies aren't building the high-speed fiber networks to deliver their TV products. They're building those networks to deliver data, and their business model relies on data customers paying for that network, not TV customers. The demand for internet providers isn't going anywhere regardless of the future of video. So don't cry for Comcast, Argentina.

(And fiber networks are rapidly expanding in rural America...often being built by rural telephone coops with government grants.)

[73Volgrad]

So Creek,

Big Government is supposed to step in and build the cable systems for the utilities?  What happened to free enterprise?  Government should not be in the business of subsidizing cable beyond the huge tax breaks big business bribes Congress to give them.  And big cable companies do depend on the paying home customer to maintain the revenue stream.  If not, why does the cable bill increase yearly.  There are more consumers than business customers and they would go bankrupt if they only had business clients. 

In Knoxville, you have four cable companies, but depending on where you live, you have only 1 to 3 to pick from.  Charter does not serve my neighborhood. WOW is cash strapped locally and waiting to be bought out IMO.  When they were Knology(?), their service really sucked and I never get the same monthly bill for a year.  AT&T has not put fiber optic in my neighborhood in west Knoxville yet (I could get DSL and have it disconnect once an hour).  Comcast may have terrible customer service, but since they upgraded their fiber optic system, I have not had disruption in service.  They are money grubbing SOBs, but what big company isn't.

All I am saying is if any company wants to enter a market, you have to be willing to invest your own money to build a fiber optic system and not depend on Big Government to make another company let you use their equipment at a discounted rate just to satisfy Momma and Daddy being too cheap to pay what the market costs.  Cable companies should have the right to charge others what it costs to use the bandwidth that they would be unable to sell if occupied.

[Creek Walker]

So Creek,

Big Government is supposed to step in and build the cable systems for the utilities?  What happened to free enterprise?  Government should not be in the business of subsidizing cable beyond the huge tax breaks big business bribes Congress to give them.  And big cable companies do depend on the paying home customer to maintain the revenue stream.  If not, why does the cable bill increase yearly.  There are more consumers than business customers and they would go bankrupt if they only had business clients. 

In Knoxville, you have four cable companies, but depending on where you live, you have only 1 to 3 to pick from.  Charter does not serve my neighborhood. WOW is cash strapped locally and waiting to be bought out IMO.  When they were Knology(?), their service really sucked and I never get the same monthly bill for a year.  AT&T has not put fiber optic in my neighborhood in west Knoxville yet (I could get DSL and have it disconnect once an hour).  Comcast may have terrible customer service, but since they upgraded their fiber optic system, I have not had disruption in service.  They are money grubbing SOBs, but what big company isn't.

All I am saying is if any company wants to enter a market, you have to be willing to invest your own money to build a fiber optic system and not depend on Big Government to make another company let you use their equipment at a discounted rate just to satisfy Momma and Daddy being too cheap to pay what the market costs.  Cable companies should have the right to charge others what it costs to use the bandwidth that they would be unable to sell if occupied.

I didn't say anything about the government subsidizing the cable companies, and I didn't say anything about residential customers not being important to cable companies.

What I said is that there ARE high-speed internet options outside the urban networks that were largely built by cable companies, and cable companies will exist as ISPs even if the future of TV shuts them out from a piece of the video pie. Your argument is that it isn't fair for companies like Apple and Netflix to own the future of TV because their services require a lot of bandwidth on the backs of the networks the cable companies built. I'm saying the cable companies will continue to collect the revenues for which those fiber networks were built regardless of what the future of TV is.

As for the government's involvement, the cable companies and other big market ISPs aren't willing to build fiber networks in rural communities because the profit margins don't make it feasible. So, yes, I'm all for government subsidies to local telephone coops or even for-profit corporations who are willing to build the networks in those areas. Because as we all know (or should know), high-speed data networks are about far more than play and entertainment and it's becoming increasingly difficult for rural communities to stay competitive on the global economic scene without that infrastructure in place. We waste tax dollars on far less important things.

[73Volgrad]

This is my last post on this.  The FCC has ruled that cable companies cannot limit or recover the actual costs for other companies intruding on their bandwidth.  In fact, the FCC has fixed the costs at a low rate based only on some made-up internet freedom BS.  I do believe cable companies have the right to charge other users a high rate to use their bandwidth. Hula has built nothing. They deserve to pay. You must live in a big city because there are no high speed internet providers in Knoxville that charge reasonable rates.  You have your opinions.  I have mine.  Too bad we cannot sit down over a beer and argue about it. I love a good debate.

[Creek Walker]

This is my last post on this.  The FCC has ruled that cable companies cannot limit or recover the actual costs for other companies intruding on their bandwidth.  In fact, the FCC has fixed the costs at a low rate based only on some made-up internet freedom BS.  I do believe cable companies have the right to charge other users a high rate to use their bandwidth. Hula has built nothing. They deserve to pay. You must live in a big city because there are no high speed internet providers in Knoxville that charge reasonable rates.  You have your opinions.  I have mine.  Too bad we cannot sit down over a beer and argue about it. I love a good debate.

Big city? I'm cruising along on a broadband speed of 0.7mbps at the moment. I'm looking out my window and I see exactly two streetlights ... and they're 200 yards away.

[Volznut]

 We waste tax dollars on far less important things.

Truth