# Cord cutting a myth?



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I've said it before and this article pretty much backs up what my thoughts are on the situation:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tech...dcutters—cables-not-going-anywhere/ar-BBafn6M

People seem to be of the mindset that dropping cable and switching to streaming services will save them money. That may be somewhat true for the moment, but at some point your cable provider, who is most likely also your ISP, will start charging you more for your internet service to compensate for any loss in revenue from dwindling cable subscriptions. Let's face it, they're going to get you one way or another.

My premise is that the term "cord cutting" is completely false and misleading. While you may be dropping your cable TV service, you're probably still connected to your cable company for TV via the internet. A true cord cutter will have no internet and will rely only on an antenna as their TV provider, just like the old days. I suppose the term "cord cutting" would be more applicable if you only received TV programming via your wireless service and not from a hard line feed into your home.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've said it before and this article pretty much backs up what my thoughts are on the situation:
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tech...dcutters—cables-not-going-anywhere/ar-BBafn6M
> 
> ...


I have saved well over $2,000 since I cut the "TV" cord roughly two years ago, and I include Dish TV in that category. My internet is the same, and has been for years, with no data cap, and I stream all the time. If I am not watching TV I am streaming audio from Pandora or Tunein radio. I have high speed DSL which works perfectly for streaming HD 1080. I also get to watch more movies, and different programs using my Roku than I did when I had cable or dish, plus I can binge watch now which was impossible before. I wouldn't go back to cable, if it was free. Nobody would give up Internet today, so Cord Cutting obviously refers to cable and dish in today's world.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/getting-rid-of-cable-tv-the-smartest-ways-to-cut-the-cord-1405472757

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ord-cutters-cable-tv-fades-to-black/14513495/


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I won't cord cut....Ihave the thinnest cord possible. We just have lifeline cable from Comcast at $11/month for locals/HD. Works fine for us.


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> My premise is that the term "cord cutting" is completely false and misleading. While you may be dropping your cable TV service, you're probably still connected to your cable company for TV via the internet. A true cord cutter will have no internet and will rely only on an antenna as their TV provider, just like the old days. I suppose the term "cord cutting" would be more applicable if you only received TV programming via your wireless service and not from a hard line feed into your home.


Why stop there? Maybe in your world one would also have to cut the cord to the antenna as well. Or maybe even the electrical cord to the tv. And let's cut all HDMI, component, composite, s-video, and Ethernet while we're at it.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

poppagene said:


> Why stop there? Maybe in your world one would also have to cut the cord to the antenna as well. Or maybe even the electrical cord to the tv. And let's cut all HDMI, component, composite, s-video, and Ethernet while we're at it.


There are always going to be cables involved and not actual cords so the term itself is inaccurate. Cord cutting refers to eliminating pay cable or satellite TV sources and switching to alternate providers (i.e., streaming services or OTA). The fact remains that most "cord cutters" are still connected to their cable companies as their ISP so the cable that delivered the TV signal to their house is still there. Nothing has physically been cut or disconnected between your home and your provider.

More and more people are following the trend to "cut the cord." Eventually, the cable providers are going to take action and start jacking up your internet rates to compensate for the loss in revenue. They may also start placing data caps on what you download or stream. Either that or they may start charging data rates just like they do with wireless phone services.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

True that many (most?) of us are captive to a single provider for Internet suitable for broadband streaming, and the same provider for Cable TV. So cutting the cord, unless you go pure OTA and/or DVD's, doesn't break this dependency and yes they will charge whatever they want to.

There are still advantages in not using cable TV, though. The biggest one, for me at least, is saying goodbye to CableCARD and Tuning Adapters. Then there is the hassle of trying to understand cable bundles and promotions, and having to make the "lower my cost or I'm quitting cable" call every year. Even if getting all my content via Internet streaming cost the same as what I'm now paying for cable+internet, I would still prefer it -- and I get the benefit of watching when I want, possibly without even needing a DVR to time shift.

Of course, right now, most people can't get all the content they want just by OTA plus Internet streaming -- but that is gradually improving.

I think "cord cutting" is understood by most people to mean quitting cable or satTV and I see no need to change that meaning.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> People seem to be of the mindset that dropping cable and switching to streaming services will save them money. That may be somewhat true for the moment, but at some point your cable provider, who is most likely also your ISP, will start charging you more for your internet service to compensate for any loss in revenue from dwindling cable subscriptions. Let's face it, they're going to get you one way or another.


if this proves to be true (and it hasn't been yet, but let's hypothetically say you're right) then this is where our government regulators should step in and correct the market.

You grant a franchise, you better make sure the pricing of that franchises services is cost justifiable. If they start raising rates for no reason besides "they can" then it's the job of the franchising organization to drop their franchise. That's why we have this system in place.

Also, internet has more competition than TV, which already balances it against your claims.

edit: As to your second point, who cares if "cord cutting" is literally cutting cords? This is the dumbest point to make. It's totally irrelevant what we call it. We know what it means. It's a term. "OTA" isn't literally Over the Air. It's not OVER the AIR! It's waves! Derpa derpa derap. Worthless discussion.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> if this proves to be true (and it hasn't been yet, but let's hypothetically say you're right) then this is where our government regulators should step in and correct the market.
> 
> You grant a franchise, you better make sure the pricing of that franchises services is cost justifiable. If they start raising rates for no reason besides "they can" then it's the job of the franchising organization to drop their franchise. That's why we have this system in place.


All this is true and it already applies to our current cable TV providers. How well do you think it is working? And why would it work any better in the future?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dlfl said:


> All this is true and it already applies to our current cable TV providers. How well do you think it is working? And why would it work any better in the future?


Our cable TV prices are going up because content providers are leveraging sports (primarily) to force cable TV packages to add more and more channels. Even the broadcast companies are leveraging more and more dollars out of the carriers. I'm not saying they are right, or just, or should go up. I am saying, they have a plausible claim to make to regulators.

The carriers can look regulators in the face and say "they are getting more channels, our costs are going up, we have to raise prices." The cable companies are not making outsized profits. It's public information. You can look it up.

The claim made by the OP is that they will just raise prices with no additional services or benefits, just because they can get away with it. To compensate for lost TV revenues, you'd be talking about doubling internet prices. In a hostile environment where our regulators have already made noise about our internet being slower and more expensive than other country's.

And don't forget we have competition from even the likes of traditional DSL/ADSL, Fiber and even cellular providers.

This dystopian world where internet prices go up by enough to compensate for lost TV revenues is pure fantasy.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

The more demand there is for broadband, the more people will try to break into the market. Sure, in rural areas, that may not be possible, but in cities, where most of the population is, companies are starting to compete for business. Right now, I could go with Frontier or TWC. If you believe the press releases, I could also choose from Google, AT&T, and RST fiber in the future. 

"Cutting the cord" is just a term the press and marketing people use, and as such, does not have to be 100% accurate per your definition of it. I suspect you didn't invent the term, why do you care? It describes a fairly nebulous phenomenon which could be a different experience for each person going through it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> .... internet has more competition than TV ......


Not obvious, can you expand on that statement? (Remember cable and satellite compete in most cable-served areas.) In my area cable internet is provided by TWC Roadrunner and Earthlink, but Earthlink uses the same infrastructure as Roadrunner so there can never be much price competition since TWC simply wouldn't allow it. Overall, DSL is poor competition for cable internet.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Not obvious, can you expand on that statement? (Remember cable and satellite compete in most cable-served areas.) In my area cable internet is provided by TWC Roadrunner and Earthlink, but Earthlink uses the same infrastructure as Roadrunner so there can never be much price competition since TWC simply wouldn't allow it. Overall, DSL is poor competition for cable internet.


if you read my post, you'd know the answer to this question already, since I addressed it in my post.

DSL is not poor competition for cable internet. You should read up on substitute goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good

I can choose to receive home internet from Verizon, Sprint, AT&T Cellular, AT&T DSL, AT&T UVerse, TWC, Iglou (local company that does ADSL) and presumably also T-Mob, FreedomPop and Virgin but I've never looked into those to be sure.

That's a lot more options than I have for TV service.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> Our cable TV prices are going up because content providers are leveraging sports (primarily) to force cable TV packages to add more and more channels. Even the broadcast companies are leveraging more and more dollars out of the carriers. I'm not saying they are right, or just, or should go up. I am saying, they have a plausible claim to make to regulators.
> 
> The carriers can look regulators in the face and say "they are getting more channels, our costs are going up, we have to raise prices." The cable companies are not making outsized profits. It's public information. You can look it up.
> 
> ...


OK but the "world" where the total of internet prices + paying for internet content will mean the net cost of getting your content will not be reduced by cutting the cord will exist. The a la carte aspect of internet streaming will not reduce overall costs although some will pay more while some pay less (depending on what they put in their "carte").


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> if you read my post, you'd know the answer to this question already, since I addressed it in my post.
> 
> DSL is not poor competition for cable internet. You should read up on substitute goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good
> 
> ...


I don't see where you answered that question, at least not in the post I was responding to.

You are in a fortunate minority of consumers with all those different internet providers to choose from, although I doubt cellular data services should be considered realistic competition for HD video streaming.

I disagree that ADSL provides realistic competition for video streaming for most people in most areas. BTW I looked at your substitute goods link. That's just common sense. I already knew that and it doesn't change my perspective on internet competition.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've said it before and this article pretty much backs up what my thoughts are on the situation:
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tech...dcutters—cables-not-going-anywhere/ar-BBafn6M
> 
> ...


Well most of my "TV" comes via OTA. I also have my TiVo auto download various pod casts, have a Roku, and a HTPC, but do not currently pay for any streaming services. My ISP is my telephone company (Frontier) and I dropped Dishnetwork a few years ago. So does that make me a cord cutter or not? I would say yes.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

atmuscarella said:


> Well most of my "TV" comes via OTA. I also have my TiVo auto download various pod casts, have a Roku, and a HTPC, but do not currently pay for any streaming services. My ISP is my telephone company (Frontier) and I dropped Dishnetwork a few years ago. So does that make me a cord cutter or not? I would say yes.


You still have a POTS line. You are *so* not a cord-cutter.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Well most of my "TV" comes via OTA. I also have my TiVo auto download various pod casts, have a Roku, and a HTPC, but do not currently pay for any streaming services. My ISP is my telephone company (Frontier) and I dropped Dishnetwork a few years ago. So does that make me a cord cutter or not? I would say yes.


How to you download podcasts on your Tivo?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> You still have a POTS line. You are *so* not a cord-cutter.


Does having electricity disqualify me from being a cord cutter?


----------



## spaldingclan (Aug 22, 2012)

I cut the cord 2 years ago and couldn't be happier. I use streaming services like MLS Live for my soccer and MLB.tv for baseball. My ISP Frontier gives me access to ESPN3 so i get stuff that way too (not sure why they give access to ESPN3)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> How to you download podcasts on your Tivo?


Are you asking how to mechanically sign up for pod cast downloads or are you asking how I get Internet access? In any event internet access is via Frontier DSL and you can get more info about signing up for pod cast downloads here: http://www.tivo.com/find-tv-shows/about-web-videos & the list of what is available is here: https://www.tivo.com/tivo-tco/go.do?def=tco.webvideos.page


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> My premise is that the term "cord cutting" is completely false and misleading. While you may be dropping your cable TV service, you're probably still connected to your cable company for TV via the internet. A true cord cutter will have no internet and will rely only on an antenna as their TV provider, just like the old days. I suppose the term "cord cutting" would be more applicable if you only received TV programming via your wireless service and not from a hard line feed into your home.


"Cord cutting" is not a literal description. Call it what you want. The term arose to indicate cutting the cable TV cord, but it means more now.

I cut myself off from cable and satellite distribution as these are hugely expensive services. I pay Netflix and Hulu, so I'm probably saving a net of around $60/month over comparable TV delivery via the traditional methods. Yes, I'm paying an ISP, but I was paying that along with TV before anyway.

I am saving a lot of money. A lot.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

From the Oxford dictionary



> noun
> informal
> A person who cancels or forgoes a cable television subscription or landline phone connection in favor of an alternative Internet-based or wireless service: a popular way for cord cutters to view programming on their TV is with a streaming video box


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Are you asking how to mechanically sign up for pod cast downloads or are you asking how I get Internet access? In any event internet access is via Frontier DSL and you can get more info about signing up for pod cast downloads here: http://www.tivo.com/find-tv-shows/about-web-videos & the list of what is available is here: https://www.tivo.com/tivo-tco/go.do?def=tco.webvideos.page


I was wondering about the Podcasts, but I see that can't be done on a Roamio basic.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

hefe said:


> "Cord cutting" is not a literal description. Call it what you want. The term arose to indicate cutting the cable TV cord, but it means more now.
> 
> I cut myself off from cable and satellite distribution as these are hugely expensive services. I pay Netflix and Hulu, so I'm probably saving a net of around $60/month over comparable TV delivery via the traditional methods. Yes, I'm paying an ISP, but I was paying that along with TV before anyway.
> 
> I am saving a lot of money. A lot.


Since I got my Tivo, I cancelled Hulu Plus, cause I can record most of what I was watching on Hulu Plus anyway. Just using Netflix now for paid.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Your primary argument is that cord cutting saves you money now but won't in the future, therefore it's not cord cutting. Wtf? and So what? When that future time comes people will make new decisions based on the new circumstances. That's how life works.


----------



## spaldingclan (Aug 22, 2012)

I'm saving about $100 a month by cutting the cord and no longer giving Directv money. Most of what we watched on D* is on Netflix or via OTA on my Tivo's which Ive got lifetime on and will be paying for them selves soon once I'm past about 2 years.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dlfl said:


> OK but the "world" where the total of internet prices + paying for internet content will mean the net cost of getting your content will not be reduced by cutting the cord will exist. The a la carte aspect of internet streaming will not reduce overall costs although some will pay more while some pay less (depending on what they put in their "carte").


Packaged unlimited deals are a weird thing. Every time we study them, we find they produce over consumption vs the optimal point in a pay-as-you-go market. It's true of internet service, TV service, food buffets, cell phone minutes, etc. When each marginal unit is free, we consume more marginal units.

So, it's true, if I cut the cord, but bought up everything I consume now a la carte, I would spend more money total. Probably.

But what we'd find is, when we went a la carte, is I would consume less total, and would instead seek replacement goods that have a lower marginal cost. Meaning, i would play more video games, or read more books.

Which is exactly why cable companies don't want to change their model and why Google wants everyone to have cheap unlimited internet.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dlfl said:


> You are in a fortunate minority of consumers with all those different internet providers to choose from, although I doubt cellular data services should be considered realistic competition for HD video streaming.


Why not? I can stream HD video over LTE. Realistically, you can get 7GB over LTE. And I haven't even mentioned XLTE, which is one its way already.

I only get 13GB from UVerse. Many people are still sitting on 3GB connections and are perfectly happy. I streamed netflix for a few years on a 3GB line. It was fine for 1 TV at a time.



> I disagree that ADSL provides realistic competition for video streaming for most people in most areas.


You're wrong? ADSL routinely hits 3GB. Which is sufficient for a single HD video stream.



> BTW I looked at your substitute goods link. That's just common sense. I already knew that and it doesn't change my perspective on internet competition.


Well, you still seem to think that ADSL is not a viable substitute for cable internet, which tells me you either didn't read the link, or you didn't get it.

People will choose imperfect substitutes when the switching cost is low enough and the cost to keep their first choice is high enough.

When the prices of steak get too high, people eat more bread. Bread isn't a great substitute for steak, is it? But it's still a substitute good.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> Why not? I can stream HD video over LTE. Realistically, you can get 7GB over LTE. And I haven't even mentioned XLTE, which is one its way already.
> 
> I only get 13GB from UVerse. Many people are still sitting on 3GB connections and are perfectly happy. I streamed netflix for a few years on a 3GB line. It was fine for 1 TV at a time.
> 
> ...


I want your DSL. The fastest one available to me is 24*Mb*.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> I was wondering about the Podcasts, but I see that can't be done on a Roamio basic.


Are you sure? They work fine on my Base Roamio (by Roamio basic I assume you mean the OTA only version?). The first link maybe a little out of date try the second one and log into your account and see what happens.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Why not? I can stream HD video over LTE. Realistically, you can get 7GB over LTE. And I haven't even mentioned XLTE, which is one its way already.
> 
> I only get 13GB from UVerse. Many people are still sitting on 3GB connections and are perfectly happy. I streamed netflix for a few years on a 3GB line. It was fine for 1 TV at a time.
> 
> ...


I think you have your speeds messed up my DSL is 6Mbs max (drops to under 1Mb in the evening) nothing has the "GB" speeds like you wrote.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Ha. I just now got a call from Comcast trying to upgrade my service. I guess it's a discount off the "regular" price that I "qualify" for...for faster internet, and some programming package and on-demand service, but even at the discount, it would be around $30/mo more than I'm paying now. I politely declined.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> I think you have your speeds messed up my DSL is 6Mbs max (drops to under 1Mb in the evening) nothing has the "GB" speeds like you wrote.


That is very unusual for DSL to drop like that. My DSL stays right around 6Mbs even during prime time hours.

Look what may come down the pike in a year or two. http://www.cnet.com/news/lowly-dsl-broadband-poised-for-gigabit-speed-boost/


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> That is very unusual for DSL to drop like that. My DSL stays right around 6Mbs even during prime time hours.
> 
> Look what may come down the pike in a year or two. http://www.cnet.com/news/lowly-dsl-broadband-poised-for-gigabit-speed-boost/


Just read that myself sounds great in theory, but the chances of Frontier investing in the upgrade are slim. I have complained about the speed problems and they play real good lip service without officially admitting what the problem is. They pretty automatically send out a new modem/router for free and test my line. The last time they sent 2 techs out to test my lines again I looked at them and said lets be honest we all know nothing is wrong with my lines every morning 6Mbs every evening drops to 1isMbs when people are using it. So I asked them if they knew what was really going on and where the problem really was. They looked at me and said everyone (meaning company people) know what the issue is and where the problem is but the higher ups will not authorize the money to upgrade the equipment. Apparently several switching stations all go to a near by switching station and the through capacity there is limited. So as bandwidth demand increase beyond that stations capacity in the evening it causes everyone's DSL speeds to be decreased.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> Why not? I can stream HD video over LTE. Realistically, you can get 7GB over LTE. And I haven't even mentioned XLTE, which is one its way already.
> 
> I only get 13GB from UVerse. Many people are still sitting on 3GB connections and are perfectly happy. I streamed netflix for a few years on a 3GB line. It was fine for 1 TV at a time.
> 
> ...


 Bread-to-steak is about the way I see DSL-to-Cable internet. But I'm sure there are some people that actually prefer bread to steak (e.g., vegans).

I appreciate that you've made a vigorous defense of your statement there is more competition in Internet than in Cable TV, although I'm still not impressed -- just due to my perspective perhaps. My standard TWC internet is 15Mbps and has no data caps. It's part of a bundle but it must cost about $39/mo. because once when I had an outage for a few days they prorated my credit on that amount. My perspective is that a very small percentage of consumers have a choice of more than one internet service that equals or betters that price/performance point despite specific examples that do. What is an acceptable substitute good varies with the standards and requirements of the consumer. I just don't consider 3 Mbps DSL acceptable at any price, and can't get 15 Mbps or higher in my location.

Fifteen years ago I was elated to graduate from 56kbps to DSL at 768 kbps maximum, paying a total of $50/mo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Cord-cutting is mostly BS. It's just a right-sizing of the market, with people who don't watch TV anyways dropping their mostly-unused cable subscriptions. Most people will stay with the cord, especially when you factor in bundles and discounts and un-bundling fees for internet.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

The myth is that paying less for less content is something new. IT's not. You've been able to downsize your cable package for a long time now.

Thus I can only guess the whole cord cutting movement is purely emotional/psychological. 

Having the big cable package was the cool thing to do. IT wasn't cool to downsize your cable package even though you could have done so many years ago. You could have been paying $20ish/mo for payty's version of OTA all along. But I guess some couldn't do that because it wasn't cool. 

But cord cutting is fairly hip. And thus you can downsize now and feel good about it. And thus cc's feel so good they start distorting how much money they are really saving because any reality check would be a downer to them. It's not cool to do that. It doesn't feel as good.

The other myth is that you're getting the same content. Most cord cutters play really vague and loose with content comparisons. They only mention the number of OTA channels that can possibly be supported. And they mention the series they get on Netflix but don't mention that they are 1 year behind. And you never ever hear that they are missing a favorite show only found on cable. And you always hear about how much crap is on able but never hear about how much crap is on Netflix or OTA from their lips.


----------



## spaldingclan (Aug 22, 2012)

I'm not trying to be hip...I'm trying to save $100 a month for tv channels I now get for free OTA. It's not a myth.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

spaldingclan said:


> I'm not trying to be hip...I'm trying to save $100 a month for tv channels I now get for free OTA. It's not a myth.


Do yourself a favor, it is like trying to reason with a brick wall.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> The myth is that paying less for less content is something new. IT's not. You've been able to downsize your cable package for a long time now.


And by cutting it completely, I'm paying even less!



trip1eX said:


> Thus I can only guess the whole cord cutting movement is purely emotional/psychological.


No, it's quite practical and economical. I have financial proof.



trip1eX said:


> Having the big cable package was the cool thing to do. IT wasn't cool to downsize your cable package even though you could have done so many years ago. You could have been paying $20ish/mo for payty's version of OTA all along. But I guess some couldn't do that because it wasn't cool.
> 
> But cord cutting is fairly hip. And thus you can downsize now and feel good about it. And thus cc's feel so good they start distorting how much money they are really saving because any reality check would be a downer to them. It's not cool to do that. It doesn't feel as good.


Umm, what? I was a cutter before cutting was "cool," if that's even a thing. 



trip1eX said:


> The other myth is that you're getting the same content. Most cord cutters play really vague and loose with content comparisons. They only mention the number of OTA channels that can possibly be supported. And they mention the series they get on Netflix but don't mention that they are 1 year behind. And you never ever hear that they are missing a favorite show only found on cable. And you always hear about how much crap is on able but never hear about how much crap is on Netflix or OTA from their lips.


You listen to the wrong people. Whenever I discuss it with anyone, I absolutely say that the tradeoff is that a lot of stuff I watch is later than it aired, but that I have enough content to watch to keep me satisfied while the Breaking Bads and Games of Thrones make their way to secondary distribution channels. And, that it is fine with me.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Just read that myself sounds great in theory, but the chances of Frontier investing in the upgrade are slim. I have complained about the speed problems and they play real good lip service without officially admitting what the problem is. They pretty automatically send out a new modem/router for free and test my line. The last time they sent 2 techs out to test my lines again I looked at them and said lets be honest we all know nothing is wrong with my lines every morning 6Mbs every evening drops to 1isMbs when people are using it. So I asked them if they knew what was really going on and where the problem really was. They looked at me and said everyone (meaning company people) know what the issue is and where the problem is but the higher ups will not authorize the money to upgrade the equipment. Apparently several switching stations all go to a near by switching station and the through capacity there is limited. So as bandwidth demand increase beyond that stations capacity in the evening it causes everyone's DSL speeds to be decreased.


Well is someone runs a 6" water main for miles and then it has to go through a piece of 1/4" tubing, stuff like that happens.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Packaged unlimited deals are a weird thing. Every time we study them, we find they produce over consumption vs the optimal point in a pay-as-you-go market. It's true of internet service, TV service, food buffets, cell phone minutes, etc. When each marginal unit is free, we consume more marginal units.
> 
> So, it's true, if I cut the cord, but bought up everything I consume now a la carte, I would spend more money total. Probably.
> 
> ...


IT's not that nefarious.

A lot of the current model is based on the how the legacy broadcasting technology works. It costs Comcast no less to deliver 1 channel to your home than 100 channels. And in the old days, techs had to put a trap on lines to block out channels or filters to let you see premium ones. Imagine if they did that on a per channel basis? It wasn't practical. And then the leverage they had to get cheap prices per channel if every customer had access to them only further lent itself to a package business model. And then you had content providers, who gradually merged into larger content providers, also wanting to leverage their popular channel to get their less popular channels on board. All these things brought cable to a one size fits all type of package.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

hefe said:


> And by cutting it completely, I'm paying even less!


Yep ~$20/mo less.



hefe said:


> No, it's quite practical and economical. I have financial proof.


Cord cutters could have been saving a ton of money for years by downsizing their package a long time ago.



hefe said:


> Umm, what? I was a cutter before cutting was "cool," if that's even a thing.
> 
> You listen to the wrong people. Whenever I discuss it with anyone, I absolutely say that the tradeoff is that a lot of stuff I watch is later than it aired, but that I have enough content to watch to keep me satisfied while the Breaking Bads and Games of Thrones make their way to secondary distribution channels. And, that it is fine with me.


IF you look you will see the same pattern.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

hefe said:


> And by cutting it completely, I'm paying even less!
> 
> No, it's quite practical and economical. I have financial proof.
> 
> ...


Folks that are hell bent on defending the hundreds and hundreds of dollars that they give to the cable and dish companies, will insist that people like you and I that have cut the cord , don't have anything to watch. They are clueless. and totally focused on trying to prove their point ( maybe to themselves) , and don't want to hear anything that differs from their one track focus.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

spaldingclan said:


> I'm not trying to be hip...I'm trying to save $100 a month for tv channels I now get for free OTA. It's not a myth.


You are saving $20/mo. That's what you could have been paying for cable all along if you just wanted an OTA-type package.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Do yourself a favor, it is like trying to reason with a brick wall.


Bob please stay on topic yet again.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Folks that are hell bent on defending the hundreds and hundreds of dollars that they give to the cable and dish companies, will insist that people like you and I that have cut the cord , don't have anything to watch. They are clueless. and totally focused on trying to prove their point ( maybe to themselves) , and don't want to hear anything that differs from their one track focus.


Again insults don't help the thread. Stay on topic.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Again insults don't help the thread. Stay on topic.


If you view comments regarding things you say, no matter how truthful the comments are, as insults, then you have a problem. You stay on topic and stop trying to get a flame war going, which you seem to be preoccupied with . As I said before to you, it gets really old.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> If you view comments regarding things you say, no matter how truthful the comments are, as insults, then you have a problem. You stay on topic and stop trying to get a flame war going, which you seem to be preoccupied with . As I said before to you, it gets really old.


Hey again stay on topic.


----------



## spaldingclan (Aug 22, 2012)

wow, you are sure a real a hole....I'm saving $100/month. I no longer pay for my tv from Directv. This has nothing to do with my ISP


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

spaldingclan said:


> wow, you are sure a real a hole....I'm saving $100/month. I no longer pay for my tv from Directv. This has nothing to do with my ISP


LOL.....


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> The myth is that paying less for less content is something new. IT's not. You've been able to downsize your cable package for a long time now.
> 
> Thus I can only guess the whole cord cutting movement is purely emotional/psychological.
> 
> ...


Every household's situation is different, the reality is cable/satellite is a good deal for many and a waste of money for others.

I am 57 years old and have had cable/satellite for less than 10 years during my life. For awhile it was worth it and then it wasn't so I dropped it - sometime around 2008. I only have time for a few hours of TV a day and don't watch sports. I have over 10 TBs of saved shows that I will likely never watch and need to buy another storage drive soon. So why exactly would I pay for cable/satellite or for that matter Netflix etc. - I do like to watch movies so I will spend a few $s for them one way or another. I stopped worrying about what was "cool" or trying to keep up with the Jone's long ago and feel sorry for anyone who is foolish enough to do either.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Every household's situation is different, the reality is cable/satellite is a good deal for many and a waste of money for others.
> 
> I am 57 years old and have had cable/satellite for less than 10 years during my life. For awhile it was worth it and then it wasn't so I dropped it - sometime around 2008. I only have time for a few hours of TV a day, don't watch sports. I have over 10 TBs of saved shows that I will likely never watch and need to buy another storage drive soon. So why exactly would I pay for cable/satellite or for that matter Netflix etc. - I do like to watch movies so I will spend a few $s for them one way or another. I stopped worrying about what was "cool" or trying to keep up with the Jone's long ago and feel sorry for anyone who is foolish enough to do either.


Exactly. Everyone could have gone OTA like yourself a long time ago if they only watched networks. Nothing wrong with that at all.

The only reason I can think of on why they didn't do as you did a long time ago is because they couldn't come up with a hip or popular or socially acceptable reason to do so.

Cause who continues to pay a ton for tv they don't watch when they could have cord shaved or gone OTA all along? Not an economical person.

There just is this myth that cord cutting is new. OR even that quitting cable is new. It ain't. People have upsized, downsized, quit and restarted their cable all along.

And the other common myths spread are that cable is $100+/mo and that the content from cord cutting is the same which goes along with the cord cutting is so much cheaper myth. This is the pattern amongst cord cutters that I'm seeing. It isn't a requirement for each cord cutter to believe this.


----------



## swerver (May 18, 2012)

People that are saving $100 a month or more that they used to spend on cable/sat should be happy they cut the cord - they were getting ripped off. But they shouldn't assume that everyone is getting as bad a deal as they were, nor should they assume that there aren't advantages to paying for cable/sat. You cannot reproduce what cable/sat offers, without cable/sat.

On the other hand, people that are spending a more moderate amount for cable/sat shouldn't assume that everyone has the same wants as they do, as far as content. Some are more able to adapt to different/less/delayed options. A lot of this has to do with lifestyle.

But I do think there is something to the trendiness of cord cutting. Lots of people want to do it nowadays, and think that they are. Not as many are actually doing it.

Personally I like the idea of the cord cutter, and I've been hounding comcast for years to keep my bill reasonable. I like less the attitude of the cord cutter - "you still pay for cable? Sucker!" Similar to the folks that never forget to tell you that they don't even HAVE a tv. Insufferable.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Captainbob said:


> I was wondering about the Podcasts, but I see that can't be done on a Roamio basic.


Are you SURE? I admittedly don't know much about the Roamio Basic, other than it has 4 tuners, can do OTA _or_ cable, but not both..

If your Roamio Basic is connected to the net, try doing a Find Program for CNET Update. Then you can set up a "season pass" for it. While they sort of merged the concepts, a podcast SP doesn't actually show up in the normal SP manager (since it doesn't make sense to put it there).

I admittedly watch most of my podcasts on my iPad nowadays (at 2x), but still keep downloading most to my Tivo too... since once in a rare while, one or the other seems to miss an episode.. Though it's rare enough that they're both reliable in this aspect.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> Yep ~$20/mo less.


Only $20 you think? What could I possibly get of value out of cable or satellite for $20/mo over the $0 that I give them now?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> The only reason I can think of on why they didn't do as you did a long time ago is because they couldn't come up with a hip or popular or socially acceptable reason to do so.
> 
> Cause who continues to pay a ton for tv they don't watch when they could have cord shaved or gone OTA all along? Not an economical person.
> 
> ...


Sorry, this "hip" argument is just a load of BS. Also, I think you're imagining these myths, because I've not heard people assert that they get the same content for so much cheaper. Never. I have heard the argument that they get all the content they need or want, but not that it's equivalent to what you get by paying a lot more.

Fact: I save money by not subscribing to a cable or satellite service.

Fact: What I am able to watch is satisfying to me, and it doesn't bother me to wait for some things to come to streaming or disc later, and I don't care about not having sports channels.

Not sure why this is an issue for some people.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> More and more people are following the trend to "cut the cord." Eventually, the cable providers are going to take action and start jacking up your internet rates to compensate for the loss in revenue. They may also start placing data caps on what you download or stream. Either that or they may start charging data rates just like they do with wireless phone services.


AT&T and Comcast already do on residential service. I was forced into a business class Comcast connection to maintain a cap free connection. Net effect is that my outlay to Comcast is not that much less than it was 10 yrs ago when I cut the cord.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> More and more people are following the trend to "cut the cord." Eventually, the cable providers are going to take action and start jacking up your internet rates to compensate for the loss in revenue. They may also start placing data caps on what you download or stream. Either that or they may start charging data rates just like they do with wireless phone services.


Yes, and this is the real problem that our government refuses to face (or is paid off not to do so) - in most areas folks have one or at most 2 HSI providers so they essentially have you by the balls. This problem is way more important than how you get your TV fix, there are or are going to be many ways to get what you want.

There aren't any viable alternatives to wired HSI access right now. Comcast is already capping our area at 300GB/mo. and their whole motivation for the TWC merger is to capture more HSI. Why? Because they can own us as long as the government refuses to implement common carrier and then follow through to guarantee open access at reasonable rates.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

hefe said:


> Sorry, this "hip" argument is just a load of BS. Also, I think you're imagining these myths, because I've not heard people assert that they get the same content for so much cheaper. Never. I have heard the argument that they get all the content they need or want, but not that it's equivalent to what you get by paying a lot more.
> 
> Fact: I save money by not subscribing to a cable or satellite service.
> 
> ...


Some people don't like change. I still see a few people with flip phones now and then.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I've always been puzzled about the origin and acceptance of certain terms like "cord cutting" that are now part of everyday conversation. I know that cord cutting is an accepted term for reducing or ditching TV providers. It's just one of those anal retentive pet peeves that I have.

To be honest, I don't see a large enough volume of people cutting the cord to where it will have a significant impact on TV providers' revenue stream. If it did, then I suspect my original premise might have some merit with regards to drastic changes in fees for internet service. It seems that people don't have a problem finding alternate sources for TV, but nobody seems willing to give up the internet. It's become a necessity rather than a luxury with today's lifestyles. If you're not connected you're completely out of touch with the rest of the world.

I recall back when I first got wideband service with Comcast that they sent me a nastygram telling me to cut back on my bandwidth usage or else I may have to look for a new provider. They pointed me to some extremely vague regulation in their service agreement that indicated there was a limit on the amount of data I could transfer, but it never specified any numerical values. I don't know if they still impose such limitations anymore as available bandwidth seems to have increased from most ISPs.

OTOH, with streaming content on the rise, I can see it causing a bottleneck for ISPs even with the increased bandwidth. At some point something's got to give. I fully expect ISPs to do what they can to increase their available bandwidth, but I would also expect such increases to come with a price tag, which is where I was going with my argument.

I don't consider myself a cord cutter, but I have taken steps to greatly reduce my monthly fees for TV service. My current subscription from FIOS includes the HD Xtreme package and wideband internet. I don't subscribe to any premium channels. The only equipment I rent is two cablecards. With the bundled FIOS services and my wireless phone service, my monthly bill is just under $300, which also includes digital landline phone service with unlimited long distance. TV and internet service is probably just about $100 per month total. The rest is all phone and service fees.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> Some people don't like change. I still see a few people with flip phones now and then.


Me too, but they're mostly on old reruns of the original Star Trek.


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

trip1eX said:


> You are saving $20/mo. That's what you could have been paying for cable all along if you just wanted an OTA-type package.


Why would you pay $20 a month for the channels you could get for free with an antenna?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

poppagene said:


> Why would you pay $20 a month for the channels you could get for free with an antenna?


I guess if you felt sorry for the cable companies...


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've always been puzzled about the origin and acceptance of certain terms like "cord cutting" that are now part of everyday conversation. I know that cord cutting is an accepted term for reducing or ditching TV providers. It's just one of those anal retentive pet peeves that I have.
> 
> To be honest, I don't see a large enough volume of people cutting the cord to where it will have a significant impact on TV providers' revenue stream. If it did, then I suspect my original premise might have some merit with regards to drastic changes in fees for internet service. It seems that people don't have a problem finding alternate sources for TV, but nobody seems willing to give up the internet. It's become a necessity rather than a luxury with today's lifestyles. If you're not connected you're completely out of touch with the rest of the world.
> 
> ...


I think when business sees trends, especially in technology, they use that as a look into the future. Cable and Dish subscribers are leaving, Netflix users are increasing, Apple TVs, Rokus, and other streaming boxes are selling well, there are several OTA DVRs on the market now,are all indications that there is a great deal of interest in streaming services and moving away from the cable-dish world. Then add HBO considering streaming for the first time, with no cable subscription, and now CBS. Doesn't take a crystal ball to see where this is all headed. A huge factor is the number of young people that have never had, or are dropping Cable-dish. They get their Video from You Tube and Rokus... It will be a different world soon, just as we have seen the same kind of dramatic changes in the last few years.

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...n-fire-tv-benefit-from-soaring-interes-2.aspx


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

swerver said:


> People that are saving $100 a month or more that they used to spend on cable/sat should be happy they cut the cord - they were getting ripped off. But they shouldn't assume that everyone is getting as bad a deal as they were, nor should they assume that there aren't advantages to paying for cable/sat. You cannot reproduce what cable/sat offers, without cable/sat.
> 
> On the other hand, people that are spending a more moderate amount for cable/sat shouldn't assume that everyone has the same wants as they do, as far as content. Some are more able to adapt to different/less/delayed options. A lot of this has to do with lifestyle.
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

hefe said:


> Only $20 you think? What could I possibly get of value out of cable or satellite for $20/mo over the $0 that I give them now?


You don't understand. I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out any idiot could have downsized their cable package years ago if they are fine with watching just networks. IT didn't take "cutting the cord" to save a ton of money. Just like any idiot could have stayed on OTA this entire time.

For me it isn't OTA vs cable like it seems to be with you. They are both options. If there is no advantage to paying $20/mo for cable's equivalent of OTA then who wouldn't go OTA. No one. Great.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

OH and another observation. .... at what point does the statue of limitations expire on the whole "i'm saving $100+/mo" mantra that cord cutters like to spout.

Fast forward 5 years. Are we still going to hear how much people are saving by getting less tv than the most expensive cable packages?

Can we all just go around telling people how much we save by not buying or doing certain things that cost more than waiting or getting less?

I've been saving $100/mo for the past 6 years by watching movies on DVD instead of going to the theatre. I've saved $7200 so far. 

I save $700/mo by not leasing a Mercedes. I've been saving $8400/yr for the past 10 years. That's $84,000 I've saved.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

poppagene said:


> Why would you pay $20 a month for the channels you could get for free with an antenna?


Discount on the internet. Reception issues. You like the lineup better.


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

trip1eX said:


> OH and another observation. .... at what point does the statue of limitations expire on the whole "i'm saving $100+/mo" mantra that cord cutters like to spout.
> 
> Fast forward 5 years. Are we still going to hear how much people are saving by getting less tv than the most expensive cable packages?
> 
> ...


This is possibly the wrong community for these comparisons. One of the favorite recurring posts is how we've saved $19.99 or 14.99 or 12.99 or 9.99 or 6.99 (or pick your number) by purchasing a lifetime TiVo subscription.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

poppagene said:


> Why would you pay $20 a month for the channels you could get for free with an antenna?


If you're in an area that can't get reception then this may be your only option to get local channels short of installing a satellite dish. You could also live in an apartment or condo that only provides cable service and not an antenna for locals.

Back when I had Comcast for wideband internet and DirecTV for cable channels, I would have paid less for my Comcast bill if I had gone with their basic service in addition to internet service. I was being charged $60/month just for the internet whereas it would have cost me only about $52/month if I packaged basic cable with the internet.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> If you're in an area that can't get reception then this may be your only option to get local channels short of installing a satellite dish. You could also live in an apartment or condo that only provides cable service and not an antenna for locals.
> 
> Back when I had Comcast for wideband internet and DirecTV for cable channels, I would have paid less for my Comcast bill if I had gone with their basic service in addition to internet service. I was being charged $60/month just for the internet whereas it would have cost me only about $52/month if I packaged basic cable with the internet.


I live in a Condo about 16 miles from Downtown and with a indoor HD antenna I get about 40 local channels, of which I use about 18. I had Dish and cable for years, and never realized that I could get local TV without an outside antenna until, I bought the antenna and tried it out. Of course this was after the switch to digital transmission. My local stations look much better than they did on either cable or dish, and I get many more of them. I also don't have to worry about them fading out in a bad storm, like they did on Dish, or the cable going out.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

You can build a great indoor antenna for less than $10 using wire and a transformer. That is what I did and it put me on this journey to cancel Dish. I love Dish above all other pay TV providers but when my contract is up in December I am leaving the Hopper for Roamio.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I wanted to be a cord-cutter (yes, I would still have Internet), but I have decided that I (and more importantly, my wife) will probably be happier staying a cord-shaver for now. My OTA reception continues to be hit and miss, despite the fact that tvfool.com says all I should need is an indoor antenna. I think I just have too much tree-causing multipath issues. I had this at my old house, and I have it at my new house, which is even closer to the antenna farm. My neighbors have it too.

I do know many successful cord-cutters, but apparently it just isn't going to work well enough where I am for me to consider it.

I *am* curious to see what Verizon, Sony, and Dish come up with for streaming-only services, but until then, Dish seems to be the best deal for me for pay TV service.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

ncted said:


> My OTA reception continues to be hit and miss, despite the fact that tvfool.com says all I should need is an indoor antenna. I think I just have too much tree-causing multipath issues. I had this at my old house, and I have it at my new house, which is even closer to the antenna farm. My neighbors have it too.
> 
> I do know many successful cord-cutters, but apparently it just isn't going to work well enough where I am for me to consider it.


Try using a stealth hawk antenna. It has worked out so well for many people. You make it simply by bending some copper wire and it is under $10. It is by far the best antenna I have ever used and I have tried a lot of them. Another forum turned me on to them a few months back.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Random User 7 said:


> Try using a stealth hawk antenna. It has worked out so well for many people. You make it simply by bending some copper wire and it is under $10. It is by far the best antenna I have ever used and I have tried a lot of them. Another forum turned me on to them a few months back.


How does that do with VHF? Most of the antennas I have tried that look like that would not pick up my VHF stations.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

ncted said:


> How does that do with VHF? Most of the antennas I have tried that look like that would not pick up my VHF stations.


I have one VHF-Hi and it comes in crystal clear. I think outside links are allowed but if not please delete, I'm new to this forum. Here is where I got my info Optimized Stealth Hawk


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Random User 7 said:


> I have one VHF-Hi and it comes in crystal clear. I think outside links are allowed but if not please delete, I'm new to this forum. Here is where I got my info Optimized Stealth Hawk


Well, I can give it a try. I don't know why it would work any better than anything else. I have tried several antennas which are supposed to be very high performing, and they all will pull in some channels well, but others not so well. My VHF channel 11 is a problem for a number of UHF/VHF-HI antennas I have tried, and UHF channel 17 has been problematic for others. It would clearly be a low-cost option, so worth a try.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

How far away is it? 

I do hope it works for you. I just use 12 gauge copper wire from the home improvement store. Stick one end in a vice and the other in your drill. Hold it with a towel and it will straighten the wire. Then use a vice to bend. I have mine on the top floor in the attic but even behind the TV it was working great.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

I bought a Walltenna, which I really like, because it was so easy to stick on the wall with 4 push pins , and it doesn't have to be re-aimed when switching channels. Well worth the $35. http://www.walltenna.com/


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> You don't understand. I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out any idiot could have downsized their cable package years ago if they are fine with watching just networks. IT didn't take "cutting the cord" to save a ton of money. Just like any idiot could have stayed on OTA this entire time.
> 
> For me it isn't OTA vs cable like it seems to be with you. They are both options. If there is no advantage to paying $20/mo for cable's equivalent of OTA then who wouldn't go OTA. No one. Great.


I understand fine, but when you take issue with me saying all I'm saving is $20/mo, you are simply factually wrong.

If all the issue is is some hangup over the term, "cord cutting," then I don't know why it's a big deal. I certainly did reduce my cable (actually DirecTv) bills to reflect my actual usage. Unfortunately, the minimum package was still more than I wanted to pay for how much of it I watched. But at the time, there did not exist so many other convenient ways to make up for the programming that I'd miss by cutting altogether. Once there were other options that I felt provided sufficient content for me, AND reduced my overall costs, that's when I "cut the cord" with my television provider.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Random User 7 said:


> How far away is it?
> 
> I do hope it works for you. I just use 12 gauge copper wire from the home improvement store. Stick one end in a vice and the other in your drill. Hold it with a towel and it will straighten the wire. Then use a vice to bend. I have mine on the top floor in the attic but even behind the TV it was working great.


The main antenna farm is ~25 miles away. Everything is in the green except for NBC (channel 17) per tvfool.com.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> I bought a Walltenna, which I really like, because it was so easy to stick on the wall with 4 push pins , and it doesn't have to be re-aimed when switching channels. Well worth the $35. http://www.walltenna.com/


Do you pick up many VHF stations with this? The specs don't really talk about VHF reception. My channel 11 is down around 200Mhz which is off their chart.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

FWIW: the best reception I have managed is on a Clearstream 2v, which brings in everything I would need, except NBC has an annoying dropout every 20-30 seconds.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> So, it's true, if I cut the cord, but bought up everything I consume now a la carte, I would spend more money total. Probably.
> 
> But what we'd find is, when we went a la carte, is I would consume less total, and would instead seek replacement goods that have a lower marginal cost. Meaning, i would play more video games, or read more books.


'A reasonable argument. How true it would be in general, I don't know. TV seems addictive to many people.



Grakthis said:


> Which is exactly why cable companies don't want to change their model and why Google wants everyone to have cheap unlimited internet.


Unfortunately, it is a bit more complex than that. If CATV systems offered full a la carte services, then virtually no one would purchase local broadcast content, which is a significant chunk of their overhead costs. It would also give more leverage to the biggest subscription providers. Now I am not commenting on the ethics or economics either way. I am just saying the situation is a little bit more of a can of worms than you suggest.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

ncted said:


> The main antenna farm is ~25 miles away. Everything is in the green except for NBC (channel 17) per tvfool.com.


You should be fine, let me know once you build it. I will be curious to see if you have success.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> How does that do with VHF? Most of the antennas I have tried that look like that would not pick up my VHF stations.


Generally speaking, VHF is going to require much larger elements than UHF. The VHF band extends from 49 MHZ (6.12 meters) to 300 MHz (1 meter). The UHF band extends from 300 MHz to 3 GHz (0.1 meter). Most VHF stations sit between 55 MHz and 250 MHz, so an efficient VHF antenna will have an element length of at least 2 - 3 meters, at least for the low VHF band. UHF TV stations lie in the range of 470 - 698 MHZ, so an efficient UHF antenna can have an element length as little as 0.3 meters, or even less if the channels are in the medium UHF band.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> 'A reasonable argument. How true it would be in general, I don't know. TV seems addictive to many people.


If that were true, and TV did not act in the way other goods act, TV companies would have no incentive to bundle TV packages, as they would make more a la carte. Hence, we can assume they have a profit incentive for doing it.



> Unfortunately, it is a bit more complex than that. If CATV systems offered full a la carte services, then virtually no one would purchase local broadcast content, which is a significant chunk of their overhead costs. It would also give more leverage to the biggest subscription providers. Now I am not commenting on the ethics or economics either way. I am just saying the situation is a little bit more of a can of worms than you suggest.


Of course, there are other issues at play too. But at the end of the day, cable companies don't do it because their profits rely on the bundling system.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> OH and another observation. .... at what point does the statue of limitations expire on the whole "i'm saving $100+/mo" mantra that cord cutters like to spout.
> 
> Fast forward 5 years. Are we still going to hear how much people are saving by getting less tv than the most expensive cable packages?
> 
> ...


If 75% of people in your peer group did those things, then yes, you could say that.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Bread-to-steak is about the way I see DSL-to-Cable internet. But I'm sure there are some people that actually prefer bread to steak (e.g., vegans).
> 
> I appreciate that you've made a vigorous defense of your statement there is more competition in Internet than in Cable TV, although I'm still not impressed -- just due to my perspective perhaps. My standard TWC internet is 15Mbps and has no data caps. It's part of a bundle but it must cost about $39/mo. because once when I had an outage for a few days they prorated my credit on that amount. My perspective is that a very small percentage of consumers have a choice of more than one internet service that equals or betters that price/performance point despite specific examples that do. What is an acceptable substitute good varies with the standards and requirements of the consumer. I just don't consider 3 Mbps DSL acceptable at any price, and can't get 15 Mbps or higher in my location.
> 
> Fifteen years ago I was elated to graduate from 56kbps to DSL at 768 kbps maximum, paying a total of $50/mo.


If they raised the price of your 15MBPS internet to $100 per month, you'd drop to a 24.99 3MB so fast they'd have to prorate LAST months bill too.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> I think you have your speeds messed up my DSL is 6Mbs max (drops to under 1Mb in the evening) nothing has the "GB" speeds like you wrote.


er, yeah, change all of those Gs to Ms. Don't know what I was thinking there. Oh, I think i got lost converting from the discussion about 4G internet to MBPS.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> I live in a Condo about 16 miles from Downtown and with a indoor HD antenna I get about 40 local channels, of which I use about 18. I had Dish and cable for years, and never realized that I could get local TV without an outside antenna until, I bought the antenna and tried it out. Of course this was after the switch to digital transmission. My local stations look much better than they did on either cable or dish, and I get many more of them. I also don't have to worry about them fading out in a bad storm, like they did on Dish, or the cable going out.


Indoor antennas are great in this situation, but not everyone lives in close proximity to a metropolitan area or broadcast towers. Areas that have lots of hills or mountains and tall trees make these types of antennas essentially useless. Many rural areas need cable or satellite to have access to usable TV signals. There are lots of situations where even a rooftop antenna on a tall mast will be unable to receive TV. This is where cable and satellite are the only available options if you want TV.

The switch to digital transmissions vastly improved the reception for most people that could get a strong enough signal. Digital OTA reception is far better than any analog signals previously received on cable. Satellite TV already used digital transmissions, which is probably why it was so popular before the advent of HDTV. OTA HDTV is about as good as it gets and rivals anything available on cable or satellite. The only thing that separates it from other providers is the variety of available programming.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> Do you pick up many VHF stations with this? The specs don't really talk about VHF reception. My channel 11 is down around 200Mhz which is off their chart.


HD antenna refers to an antenna that works at UHF frequencies, so it won't work at VHF freqs.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> HD antenna refers to an antenna that works at UHF frequencies, so it won't work at VHF freqs.


The term "HD Antenna" should not mean UHF-only in any respect as it is just as possible to transmit HD signals over VHF as it is UHF. Most US markets have at least 1 VHF digital channel, so saying HD antennas can only receive UHF signals is pretty silly.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

"HD antenna" is pure marketing BS.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> HD antenna refers to an antenna that works at UHF frequencies, so it won't work at VHF freqs.


No you are mistaken.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> If they raised the price of your 15MBPS internet to $100 per month, you'd drop to a 24.99 3MB so fast they'd have to prorate LAST months bill too.


Always interesting to meet someone who knows me better than I do. 

I'm actually not sure what I would do but I doubt that 3 Mbps would be acceptable for my streaming video needs, especially since there is some doubt it would hold up at 3 Mbps at all times of day. So I might pay the $100/mo and cut the cord to reduce total cost --- or I might read more or add some premium channels to my cable.

Fortunately the trend is toward better internet performance/price points. I pay less (inflation-corrected) now for 15 Mbps than I paid for 4 Mbps ten years ago.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Time Warner Cable would survive just fine as Time Warner Broadband - broadband is their most profitable line of business anyway.

And here the basic "broadcast only" cable package is $20, but is analog cable, which is NOT equivalent to high-definition 1080i/720p OTA broadcasts.

Standard internet is $35/month, double-play internet & TV is $105 after fees/taxes (including the CableCard to get HD on your Tivo) - so $70/month more, at the promo rate.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Always interesting to meet someone who knows me better than I do.
> 
> I'm actually not sure what I would do but I doubt that 3 Mbps would be acceptable for my streaming video needs, especially since there is some doubt it would hold up at 3 Mbps at all times of day.


Why wouldn't it? Part of the joy of ADSL is you're not sharing the line, and the exchange should easily handle that traffic. It's why I liked ADSL so much. Sure I only got 3, and my brother was supposedly getting 10 on his cable line, but he actually averaged about 5 and dropped as low as 2 at peak times. Never came close to 10 and never got above 8.

My 12 from U-Verse is pretty consistently actually 10+.



> So I might pay the $100/mo and cut the cord to reduce total cost --- or I might read more or add some premium channels to my cable.
> 
> Fortunately the trend is toward better internet performance/price points. I pay less (inflation-corrected) now for 15 Mbps than I paid for 4 Mbps ten years ago.


Sorta? I pay less per MB than I used to, but that's not actually what matters. What matters is, for the things I want to do, how much does it cost me? In 1998, the internet didn't do as much, so paying $20 for dial-up was a great deal. But paying 50 bucks for high speed in 2014 is pretty unsatisfactory. I want it to still be $20. Sure, I guess in fairness, I was paying 20 for the phone line too. But now we're debating shared goods... and it gets messy.

I'm not paying for the MB, right? Or, i shouldn't be. I'm paying for a service. If everything worked that way, I'd be paying insane amounts for cell phone service, since I used to pay for each minute. Now minutes are free. This is how technology SHOULD work. My actual phone bill is only a tiny bit higher in 2014 than it was in 2001 despite getting way more for my dollars. I expect more. I should get more. Progress is great!

So, in my opinion, we're spending a higher and higher share of our money on internet, and the useability of that internet is not increasing at the same rate as those dollars are. Which is the wrong direction for my trend.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> The other myth is that you're getting the same content. Most cord cutters play really vague and loose with content comparisons. They only mention the number of OTA channels that can possibly be supported. And they mention the series they get on Netflix but don't mention that they are 1 year behind. And you never ever hear that they are missing a favorite show only found on cable. And you always hear about how much crap is on able but never hear about how much crap is on Netflix or OTA from their lips.


This is just the thing. If people just want something to veg in front of, and don't care what it is, so-called "cord cutting" is fine, and they shouldn't have had cable in the first place. If they want specific content, more than likely it requires cable to get it.



Grakthis said:


> Why wouldn't it? Part of the joy of ADSL is you're not sharing the line, and the exchange should easily handle that traffic. It's why I liked ADSL so much. Sure I only got 3, and my brother was supposedly getting 10 on his cable line, but he actually averaged about 5 and dropped as low as 2 at peak times. Never came close to 10 and never got above 8.


LOL. U-Verse VDSL has 2gig fiber backhaul to the CO for each VRAD. It's never going to run out of bandwidth at the current pathetic speeds VDSL is about to offer. U-Verse ADSL2+ is pretty well engineered.

The ATM-based stuff? Total crapshoot. Some RDSLAMs are still completely overloaded. I'm not sure how this is even the case here in CT, as we are 100% cable franchised, so I would think there would be self-selection away from DSL to cable for anyone who does anything more than email and read the news online. Many ATM-based RDSLAMs are far worse than even the most congested cable nodes have ever been.

Bottom line: basically everything except FIOS and U-Verse are heavily oversubscribed, and even those are lightly oversubscribed.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> This is just the thing. If people just want something to veg in front of, and don't care what it is, so-called "cord cutting" is fine, and they shouldn't have had cable in the first place. If they want specific content, more than likely it requires cable to get it.
> 
> LOL. U-Verse VDSL has 2gig fiber backhaul to the CO for each VRAD. It's never going to run out of bandwidth at the current pathetic speeds VDSL is about to offer. U-Verse ADSL2+ is pretty well engineered.
> 
> ...


My neighbor who works for TWC in their broadband division tells me that where I live, we are currently under-subscribed. The current fiber backbone is 40Gbps. Even when we get Maxx in 2015, we are only going to be oversubscribed like 4:1. The current utilization of their fiber network in central NC is less than 50% at peak. Of course, they also plan on upgrading the backbone to 100Gbps in 2015 as well. They are actually providing backhaul to Frontier and others with the excess capacity, so even if I switched to my other option, I would still be going over TWC wires (or fibers as it were).

It takes a lot of traffic to fill up a 40 or 100Gbps pipe.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> Indoor antennas are great in this situation, but not everyone lives in close proximity to a metropolitan area or broadcast towers. Areas that have lots of hills or mountains and tall trees make these types of antennas essentially useless. Many rural areas need cable or satellite to have access to usable TV signals. There are lots of situations where even a rooftop antenna on a tall mast will be unable to receive TV. This is where cable and satellite are the only available options if you want TV.
> 
> The switch to digital transmissions vastly improved the reception for most people that could get a strong enough signal. Digital OTA reception is far better than any analog signals previously received on cable. Satellite TV already used digital transmissions, which is probably why it was so popular before the advent of HDTV. OTA HDTV is about as good as it gets and rivals anything available on cable or satellite. The only thing that separates it from other providers is the variety of available programming.


I used to live in an upstate area of the Catskill Mountains in New York where the only way you could get a picture at all was a massive Channel Master Crossfire Antenna, on top of your house or on a tower with a rotor for aiming it when changing channels. People in that area still rely on Dish and Cable, many can get Dish only.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

trip1eX said:


> You don't understand. I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out any idiot could have downsized their cable package years ago if they are fine with watching just networks. IT didn't take "cutting the cord" to save a ton of money. Just like any idiot could have stayed on OTA this entire time.


Right, but if they want networks _AND_ the ability to eventually watch specific cable shows that was harder.

Now the majority of shows aired on cable seem to be available via streaming within a year of being aired. I think it was really those extra shows that tended to keep a lot of people on cable. (Also with streaming there's less concern that you're potentially wasting money, or even wasting one of your Netflix disk slots, by checking out a new to you show; contrast that with buying boxes sets or disk rentals)

Knowing they could (eventually) get their Game of Thrones, or Justified, or could have gotten their Breaking Bad seasons can be the extra assurance that lets them ditch cable. Trading off a delay for a significant dollar savings.

<shrug> but then I'm not really in the best position to talk to that, I'm still paying for cable (well, FIOS TV. But same thing for this purpose)


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Jonathan_S said:


> Right, but if they want networks _AND_ the ability to eventually watch specific cable shows that was harder.
> 
> Now the majority of shows aired on cable seem to be available via streaming within a year of being aired. I think it was really those extra shows that tended to keep a lot of people on cable. (Also with streaming there's less concern that you're potentially wasting money, or even wasting one of your Netflix disk slots, by checking out a new to you show; contrast that with buying boxes sets or disk rentals)
> 
> ...


I think many people are getting tired of the video crap channels that the cable companies tried to stick them with to justify their ever increasing rates and run up their channel count. Of course people that will watch any kind of junk, think they are getting a bargain with cable or dish, because they have so many choices i.e, crappy channel A, crappy channel B : crappy channel C etc.etc. After a couple of months they find they are watching the same 5 or 6 channels 95% of the time. You want to watch something that is interesting to someone with an IQ higher than their resting heart rate, the choices of interesting content narrows very quickly. That is why the movement is towards a la carte programming where you only pay for what you really want to watch, and don't pay for garbage you never view. Why would anyone in their right mind agree to paying for many channels that they have no interest in watching, to get the few channels that they would actually watch?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Random User 7 said:


> Try using a stealth hawk antenna. It has worked out so well for many people. You make it simply by bending some copper wire and it is under $10. It is by far the best antenna I have ever used and I have tried a lot of them. Another forum turned me on to them a few months back.


i built one similar to that. worked great.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> Right, but if they want networks _AND_ the ability to eventually watch specific cable shows that was harder.
> 
> Now the majority of shows aired on cable seem to be available via streaming within a year of being aired. I think it was really those extra shows that tended to keep a lot of people on cable. (Also with streaming there's less concern that you're potentially wasting money, or even wasting one of your Netflix disk slots, by checking out a new to you show; contrast that with buying boxes sets or disk rentals)
> 
> ...


Yeah except, as you briefly alluded to, you could rent and buy tv shows and movies on DVD before streaming became a thing. The Sopranos was on DVD for example. So if you wanted to wait you could wait for the DVD. Plus I don't think there were that many original cable shows 10-15 years ago either like there is today so you'd think consumers would have had even more of an excuse to ditch cable if they were fine with networks and waiting for other content?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> If 75% of people in your peer group did those things, then yes, you could say that.


huh? That one went over my head.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

hefe said:


> I understand fine, but when you take issue with me saying all I'm saving is $20/mo, you are simply factually wrong.
> 
> If all the issue is is some hangup over the term, "cord cutting," then I don't know why it's a big deal. I certainly did reduce my cable (actually DirecTv) bills to reflect my actual usage. Unfortunately, the minimum package was still more than I wanted to pay for how much of it I watched. But at the time, there did not exist so many other convenient ways to make up for the programming that I'd miss by cutting altogether. Once there were other options that I felt provided sufficient content for me, AND reduced my overall costs, that's when I "cut the cord" with my television provider.


WE already knew you could pay less for less content and pay less for older content.

I'm right that you're saving $20/mo over the cost of the typical cable OTA package.

And if you stay away for a year then who knows what promos would come your way.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Bottom line: basically everything except FIOS and U-Verse are heavily oversubscribed, and even those are lightly oversubscribed.


I'm surprised to hear traditional DSL is having issues. I didn't have issues in the early 2000's when it seemed like everyone was moving to cable. But I switched to UVerse when it became available and never looked back.

I pay about 10 more per month than i would pay for cable, but I consistently get the speed I pay for, the gateway device is top notch and it NEVER goes out. With the battery backup, I have internet for hours after power goes out.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> huh? That one went over my head.


It makes sense to say "I don't do this thing my peers do, so I save money vs my peers." It does not make sense to say "I don't do this thing that virtually no one else I know does, so I save money vs... uh... those people somewhere in the world who DO this thing."

"I save $10 a month by not eating out" makes sense if your friends DO spend $10 a month more eating out.

"I save $10 a month by not cutting my finger off annually and having it sewn back on!" does not make sense, because, who does that? No one does.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> HD antenna refers to an antenna that works at UHF frequencies, so it won't work at VHF freqs.


That's not exactly true. Both UHF and VHF antennas can receive HD channels. A true HD antenna can receive both bands.

Local channels broadcast in both UHF and VHF for HD programming. In fact, many VHF stations that broadcast in UHF for HD content prior to the transition to digital-only transmissions reverted back to their VHF frequency after the switch. If a channel was VHF before HD broadcasting started but switched to UHF for their HD channel it's probably back to VHF now.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> I think many people are getting tired of the video crap channels that the cable companies tried to stick them with to justify their ever increasing rates and run up their channel count. Of course people that will watch any kind of junk, think they are getting a bargain with cable or dish, because they have so many choices i.e, crappy channel A, crappy channel B : crappy channel C etc.etc. After a couple of months they find they are watching the same 5 or 6 channels 95% of the time. You want to watch something that is interesting to someone with an IQ higher than their resting heart rate, the choices of interesting content narrows very quickly. That is why the movement is towards a la carte programming where you only pay for what you really want to watch, and don't pay for garbage you never view. Why would anyone in their right mind agree to paying for many channels that they have no interest in watching, to get the few channels that they would actually watch?


What you're missing here is that the companies that provide the channels to the cable companies bundle a lot of these channels together as a package deal. They would actually have to pay more for the channels if they bought them a la carte. That cost would be passed along to the customer.

The channel count is just a marketing gimmick used by providers. Nobody watches all the channels they receive, but all people don't watch the same channels either. Most people tend to migrate towards a handful of channels that are their favorites, but everyone's favorites are going to vary from person to person.

The argument of wanting a la carte programming sounds great until you realize that your cable bill will cost you more for just a handful of channels than the hundreds of channels you currently receive. It's all about advertising revenue. If you're only receiving a handful of channels then the potential exposure to commercials drops drastically.

The point being, if you don't like all of the channels you receive, create a favorites list and ignore the rest.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> So, in my opinion, we're spending a higher and higher share of our money on internet, and the useability of that internet is not increasing at the same rate as those dollars are. Which is the wrong direction for my trend.


In the absence of a competitive market and with regulatory capture, this is what you get.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> What you're missing here is that the companies that provide the channels to the cable companies bundle a lot of these channels together as a package deal. They would actually have to pay more for the channels if they bought them a la carte. That cost would be passed along to the customer.
> 
> The channel count is just a marketing gimmick used by providers. Nobody watches all the channels they receive, but all people don't watch the same channels either. Most people tend to migrate towards a handful of channels that are their favorites, but everyone's favorites are going to vary from person to person.
> 
> ...


I did the next best thing, I took all the cable and dish channels I had before , and put them all on ignore, when I cut the cord. I watch more TV now they I did before and save a ton of money to boot.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I wonder how many of the 81,000 video customers Comcast lost in Q3 were cord cutters vs. switching to DirecTV/Dish? The fact that they added 315,000 broadband customers during the same time suggests a large amount of cord-cutting/nevering going on.

http://www.cmcsa.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=877721


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> I'm right that you're saving $20/mo over the cost of the typical cable OTA package.


The cheapest OTA only cable plan in my area is $30.15/mo.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Look at Ep. 41 of "CordKillers", (21 Oct 2014) on YouTube. (Just search for it.)
Quite a bit of discussion pertinent to this thread's topic and the hosts are pretty knowledgable and reasonably fair and balanced, IMHO.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> That's not exactly true. Both UHF and VHF antennas can receive HD channels. A true HD antenna can receive both bands.
> 
> Local channels broadcast in both UHF and VHF for HD programming. In fact, many VHF stations that broadcast in UHF for HD content prior to the transition to digital-only transmissions reverted back to their VHF frequency after the switch. If a channel was VHF before HD broadcasting started but switched to UHF for their HD channel it's probably back to VHF now.


There's no such thing as a "true HD antenna." That is pure marketing.

There are VHF television antennas and UHF television antennas and there are VHF/UHF television antennas. They don't care if the signal on the RF is analog, digital, or even the subset of digital that is HD. The presence or absence of an HD signal is completely irrelevant.

And the only reason that I call them "television" antennas, is the TV in the US is broadcast with horizontal polarization, so a typical television antenna will be configured or optimized to receive horizontally polarized signal.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

dlfl said:


> Look at Ep. 41 of "CordKillers", (21 Oct 2014) on YouTube. (Just search for it.)
> Quite a bit of discussion pertinent to this thread's topic and the hosts are pretty knowledgable and reasonably fair and balanced, IMHO.


one of my favorite podcasts


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

As if we needed another reason for prices to go up:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/New-NBA-Deal-to-Raise-Everybodys-TV-Rates-130991


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

hefe said:


> There's no such thing as a "true HD antenna." That is pure marketing.
> 
> There are VHF television antennas and UHF television antennas and there are VHF/UHF television antennas. They don't care if the signal on the RF is analog, digital, or even the subset of digital that is HD. The presence or absence of an HD signal is completely irrelevant.
> 
> And the only reason that I call them "television" antennas, is the TV in the US is broadcast with horizontal polarization, so a typical television antenna will be configured or optimized to receive horizontally polarized signal.


Yep, just marketing hype. The point I was making is that HD can be broadcast on both VHF and UHF and not UHF only. There are both HD and SD signals being transmitted digitally via the primary channels and any sub-channels associated with them.

TV antennas can also receive FM in most cases, not just TV signals.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Yep, just marketing hype. The point I was making is that HD can be broadcast on both VHF and UHF and not UHF only. There are both HD and SD signals being transmitted digitally via the primary channels and any sub-channels associated with them.
> 
> TV antennas can also receive FM in most cases, not just TV signals.


True enough.

The antennas will receive anything within their bandwidth...Land Mobile Radio is in there too. Of course, you need to be connected to something that can actually tune that in...


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Won't the retransmission fees the cable company pays drop in proportion to the number of cable TV subscriptions? If you drop the TV service, most cable companies already charge a higher rate for broadband than if you bundled the broadband with TV and/or Phone service, but it's still cheaper than the bundled service.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> Won't the retransmission fees the cable company pays drop in proportion to the number of cable TV subscriptions? If you drop the TV service, most cable companies already charge a higher rate for broadband than if you bundled the broadband with TV and/or Phone service, but it's still cheaper than the bundled service.


Fees normally are per subscriber so the amount collected will go down.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ncted said:


> As if we needed another reason for prices to go up:
> 
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/New-NBA-Deal-to-Raise-Everybodys-TV-Rates-130991


Yeah... the truth is, I can't complain, because I am the guy watching all these sports channels. Which are the actual reason prices are going up. Huge huge huge TV deals for sports, higher cable prices. I'm the guy watching them.

So, whoever you are out there who just wants to watch DIY Network and HBO, I'm sorry. It's my fault. You're covering my bill.

But at the same time, I'm mad at the guy who wants the SEC and BIG10 networks. I don't want those sports! Sheesh.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> My neighbor who works for TWC in their broadband division tells me that where I live, we are currently under-subscribed. The current fiber backbone is 40Gbps. Even when we get Maxx in 2015, we are only going to be oversubscribed like 4:1. The current utilization of their fiber network in central NC is less than 50% at peak. Of course, they also plan on upgrading the backbone to 100Gbps in 2015 as well. They are actually providing backhaul to Frontier and others with the excess capacity, so even if I switched to my other option, I would still be going over TWC wires (or fibers as it were).
> 
> It takes a lot of traffic to fill up a 40 or 100Gbps pipe.


NoNoNo.

First of all, at the node level, cable is heavily oversubscribed. Oversubscription is based on the sum of the bandwidth of ALL the connections divided by the actual bandwidth available. So let's say that TWC is running 16 DOCSIS 3 QAMs for 100 subs, half with Maxx and half with 50mbps. That's 17,500mbps/608mbps for an oversubscription ratio of 28. That might not be right, because maybe less than half of people really have Maxx, the node sizes are different, etc. That sounds bad, but the whole model is based on the fact that most people don't use most of their bandwidth most of the time. Even if the highest load recorded on that node is 500mbps, the system is still oversubscribed 28x, even though 108mbps of the bandwidth is never actually used.

That 40gbps pipe probably serves terabits worth of home connections. They just don't all need data at the same time. And the more connections you average out over, the more you can oversubscribe without impacting performance. The whole internet is based on oversubscription, if every computer on the internet had a full bandwidth connection to every other computer on the internet... well the internet would be impossible.

VOD and SDV channels are oversubscribed as well, that's how they work. However, where for internet traffic, if the pipe is maxed out, as long as subscribers still get decent speeds, it's OK, with VOD/SDV, you don't ever want the "slots" to get oversubscribed, because then people can't watch their channel or VOD show at all. I'm not sure exactly how SDV works on TWC, since I have Comcast, which thankfully doesn't use SDV, but they may pool those "slots" with VOD, in which case I would think SDV would have some priority over VOD, with VOD never being allowed to take over the last few slots, so that they are always open for SDV requests. Or they may be totally separate pools, although that would be less efficient, as you figure if people are watching VOD, they are less likely to be using SDV at the same time, and visa-versa.

The bottom line is that all modern systems are oversubscribed at some level. DSL is at the DSLAM, FIOS is on BPON systems at the BPON port level, U-Verse can be at the VRAD level, cable is heavily at the node level. However, all the newer telco systems are oversubscribed at such low levels that it's unlikely to ever reach capacity, whereas cable systems can, and do, reach capacity due to the aggressive over-subscription required to make them work. However, a well-managed system will not often reach capacity, and when it does, it will still provide a good level of service to customers.



Grakthis said:


> I'm surprised to hear traditional DSL is having issues. I didn't have issues in the early 2000's when it seemed like everyone was moving to cable. But I switched to UVerse when it became available and never looked back.


Yeah, I've heard reports of it just a few months ago. I honestly don't know how anyone is left on DSL to slow it down. You'd think they'd all have cable by now... The slowest cable providers are at 50mbps at this, most are at 100mbps...



> I pay about 10 more per month than i would pay for cable, but I consistently get the speed I pay for, the gateway device is top notch and it NEVER goes out. With the battery backup, I have internet for hours after power goes out.


That's great when U-Verse's top speeds are 1/4 of cable, 1/2 with pair bonding. And in TWC Maxx areas, make that 1/6th the speed even with pair bonding. And they force you to use their crappy RG, whereas with cable, you can use your own modem and router. You can also use a UPS to do the same thing with a regular modem/router.



ncted said:


> I wonder how many of the 81,000 video customers Comcast lost in Q3 were cord cutters vs. switching to DirecTV/Dish? The fact that they added 315,000 broadband customers during the same time suggests a large amount of cord-cutting/nevering going on.


Hard to say. They could just be in Comcast monopoly areas for broadband, or areas that are a de-facto monopoly, as it's 3mbps or 1.5mbps DSL or Comcast, and still have DirecTV for TV service.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> NoNoNo.
> 
> First of all, at the node level, cable is heavily oversubscribed. Oversubscription is based on the sum of the bandwidth of ALL the connections divided by the actual bandwidth available. So let's say that TWC is running 16 DOCSIS 3 QAMs for 100 subs, half with Maxx and half with 50mbps. That's 17,500mbps/608mbps for an oversubscription ratio of 28. That might not be right, because maybe less than half of people really have Maxx, the node sizes are different, etc. That sounds bad, but the whole model is based on the fact that most people don't use most of their bandwidth most of the time. Even if the highest load recorded on that node is 500mbps, the system is still oversubscribed 28x, even though 108mbps of the bandwidth is never actually used.
> 
> ...


Well, most people around here are still at 15Mbps. Not sure how many channels they are using, but he claims that they have no nodes that are oversubscribed which is why the Maxx upgrades coming out next year will be just a software upgrade. Maybe they deployed way more nodes than they needed? I am no expert. Just passing along what he said. I don't know him that well, so perhaps he is BSing me.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Random User 7 said:


> You should be fine, let me know once you build it. I will be curious to see if you have success.


Interesting development: I ordered the OTA module for my Dish Hopper, planning to use it to record PBS on Sunday nights when my other tuners are all busy. Well, when I install it and do a channel scan, I can now reliably pick up everything I want, including PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, CW, and Fox, on my Cleastream 2v. This is with the antenna sitting on top of my entertainment center in the family room on the first floor. I am going to try again this weekend with the antenna outside to see how the OTA module works with that setup. This makes me think the tuners in my Samsung TVs aren't all that great. Signal levels with the OTA module are all consistently 75-100%.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

ncted said:


> Interesting development: I ordered the OTA module for my Dish Hopper, planning to use it to record PBS on Sunday nights when my other tuners are all busy. Well, when I install it and do a channel scan, I can now reliably pick up everything I want, including PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, CW, and Fox, on my Cleastream 2v. This is with the antenna sitting on top of my entertainment center in the family room on the first floor. I am going to try again this weekend with the antenna outside to see how the OTA module works with that setup. This makes me think the tuners in my Samsung TVs aren't all that great. Signal levels with the OTA module are all consistently 75-100%.


Old antenna or the you built the stealth hawk? I agree the OTA module is nice, it works better than most TV built in tuners.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> If you're in an area that can't get reception then this may be your only option to get local channels short of installing a satellite dish. You could also live in an apartment or condo that only provides cable service and not an antenna for locals.
> 
> Back when I had Comcast for wideband internet and DirecTV for cable channels, I would have paid less for my Comcast bill if I had gone with their basic service in addition to internet service. I was being charged $60/month just for the internet whereas it would have cost me only about $52/month if I packaged basic cable with the internet.


So you could have taken Comcast's deal, ignored the cable TV service, continued to get tv via DirecTV at whatever price it was, and reduced your bill by $8 per month, but you continued to pay the extra why exactly?


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Random User 7 said:


> Old antenna or the you built the stealth hawk? I agree the OTA module is nice, it works better than most TV built in tuners.


The Clearstream 2v is what I am using. Based on what I know and what people are telling me, I probably wouldn't have great luck pulling in VHF 11 on the stealth hawk.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

unitron said:


> So you could have taken Comcast's deal, ignored the cable TV service, continued to get tv via DirecTV at whatever price it was, and reduced your bill by $8 per month, but you continued to pay the extra why exactly?


I had to use one of their boxes that was set up to only receive locals. I'd need one at each TV to watch or record from these channels. The caveat was that I'd have to pay an additional $5/month for each box so it wasn't as great of a deal as it sounds. I mostly just didn't want the extra hardware.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> That's great when U-Verse's top speeds are 1/4 of cable, 1/2 with pair bonding. And in TWC Maxx areas, make that 1/6th the speed even with pair bonding. And they force you to use their crappy RG, whereas with cable, you can use your own modem and router. You can also use a UPS to do the same thing with a regular modem/router.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

TWC here in Louisville offers $35 for 15MB internet. I pay 45 for 12MB on Uverse. No where close to your claims of 1/4 cable. Not sure what land you live in where cable internet is comparably priced but giving you 50MB.

And no one actually gets 15 on TWC in Louisville. Like I said earlier, my brother maxes around 8. Whereas I get about 10 on Uverse.

And AT&T doesn't give a **** if I run a web server for a while, or an FTP server, or any server I want to. Whereas TWC sent me angry letters because I ran an e-mail and web server for a while when I setup a special domain for my wedding website.

Being "forced" to use AT&T's gateway device for uverse is not a drawback. It's a good device, it's $6 a month, and it handles my phone service too. I have no desire to use my own gateway. I could put a gateway on this side of the modem, if I wanted to. But I don't. Theirs is great.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

LOL, you still pay for a landline from AT&T? With all those junk fees? OBi110 + GV is still free VOIP, or get an Ooma Telo at $3.50/mo. or so if you want 911. Or just use cells, they're all unlimited now anyway.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

I'm a lucky one. I have a choice of FIOS or Comcast. My bill is under $40 each month and speed is 50mb down. Comcast always lowers the bill when I'm telling them im switching to FIOS.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Random User 7 said:


> I'm a lucky one. I have a choice of FIOS or Comcast. My bill is under $40 each month and speed is 50mb down. Comcast always lowers the bill when I'm telling them im switching to FIOS.


This begs the question, why haven't you switched to FIOS instead of using it as leverage to keep an inferior service?


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

Comcast has been great around here. Like I said the competition keeps them honest.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> Well, most people around here are still at 15Mbps. Not sure how many channels they are using, but he claims that they have no nodes that are oversubscribed which is why the Maxx upgrades coming out next year will be just a software upgrade. Maybe they deployed way more nodes than they needed? I am no expert. Just passing along what he said. I don't know him that well, so perhaps he is BSing me.


That's utter and total BS. Your earlier description of "oversubscription" is just plain wrong. Your friend is talking about capacity, not oversubscription. They may well have excess capacity, but they are still oversubscribed on almost every node. I can virtually guarantee that. If you have 40 subs at 15mbps, you'd be about 1x subscribed on a 16 channel D3 deployment, but when Maxx goes in, that would shoot way up, probably to 20-50x. Cable systems are oversubscribed in at least the 20-50x range, likely a lot more. My local Comcast system, with the current round of upgrades, averages something like a 25-30x oversubscription if they have all 8 QAMs running, and only 1/8 to 1/4 of the subs have Blast!. A tech one time claimed they are only running 6, which would bump it up more.



Grakthis said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> TWC here in Louisville offers $35 for 15MB internet. I pay 45 for 12MB on Uverse. No where close to your claims of 1/4 cable. Not sure what land you live in where cable internet is comparably priced but giving you 50MB.
> 
> And no one actually gets 15 on TWC in Louisville. Like I said earlier, my brother maxes around 8. Whereas I get about 10 on Uverse.


WOW, that SUCKS. The crappy cable companies are doing 50mbps, the good ones are doing 100mbps or higher. You'll get it soon enough with Maxx to blow U-Verse clear out of the water though.

Comcast 105/20 or Verizon 75/75 is reasonable in a bundle package. AT&T doesn't compete directly with Verizon except in one place in Texas, so that's sort of irrelevant. But the cable companies here all do 50-100mbps. Even our local overbuilder is doing 110/20 for $70/mo unbundled. Bundled they or Comcast are a bit cheaper. We're paying ~$110/mo for 105mbps bundled with XF Preferred and HBO as a promo deal on Comcast.

My ultimate point there is that TWC has a system capable of 300mbps, when they eventually get around to fixing their crappy system and rolling it out. AT&T's system still tops out at 24mbps for a single pair, 45mbps for pair bonding, and less if you're farther away from the VRAD. That's why AT&T is screwed unless they run GPON fiber, as cable has WAY more bandwidth than they do.



> And AT&T doesn't give a **** if I run a web server for a while, or an FTP server, or any server I want to. Whereas TWC sent me angry letters because I ran an e-mail and web server for a while when I setup a special domain for my wedding website.


Because you're not supposed to be running servers off your home internet.



> Being "forced" to use AT&T's gateway device for uverse is not a drawback. It's a good device, it's $6 a month, and it handles my phone service too. I have no desire to use my own gateway. I could put a gateway on this side of the modem, if I wanted to. But I don't. Theirs is great.


It's a POS. Anything from an internet provider except maybe Google Fiber is a POS. Every other major ISP, i.e. Comcast, Verizon FIOS, etc, allows you to use your own router. It's a little trickier with FIOS, but possible, and then you have a gigabit copper Ethernet handoff from the ONT.



Random User 7 said:


> I'm a lucky one. I have a choice of FIOS or Comcast. My bill is under $40 each month and speed is 50mb down. Comcast always lowers the bill when I'm telling them im switching to FIOS.


Where are you located?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Random User 7 said:


> Comcast has been great around here. Like I said the competition keeps them honest.


It's not a question of keeping them honest. FIOS offers the best internet service available anywhere. That alone is a good reason to switch. I've had Comcast (twice in two different areas) and DirecTV prior to switching to FIOS and I would never even consider going back. I've never had a single outage since switching to FIOS almost 7 years ago. They also don't use tuning adapters, which is a huge plus.

DirecTV and Comcast used to go out anytime the weather got bad. Comcast runs a lot of their trunk lines on the utility poles so if one gets taken out due to a storm then there's no TV until they get it fixed. FIOS is all underground around here and everything is fiber all the way up to the house. DirecTV is even worse. All it took was some heavy rain between my dish and the horizon and the picture locked up or lost the signal.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Where are you located?


Richmond VA



mr.unnatural said:


> It's not a question of keeping them honest. FIOS offers the best internet service available anywhere. That alone is a good reason to switch. I've had Comcast (twice in two different areas) and DirecTV prior to switching to FIOS and I would never even consider going back. I've never had a single outage since switching to FIOS almost 7 years ago. They also don't use tuning adapters, which is a huge plus.
> 
> DirecTV and Comcast used to go out anytime the weather got bad. Comcast runs a lot of their trunk lines on the utility poles so if one gets taken out due to a storm then there's no TV until they get it fixed. FIOS is all underground around here and everything is fiber all the way up to the house. DirecTV is even worse. All it took was some heavy rain between my dish and the horizon and the picture locked up or lost the signal.


I've only been here two years but I've never had an issue with Comcast and pay less than $40 a month. I don't like them but I dislike Verizon more. FIOS wants to nickel and dime me on equipment charges and Verizon pissed me off where I lived previously so I just use them to keep my rate low. I like owning my modem and using my own router but if Comcast becomes an issue I will switch.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> That's utter and total BS. Your earlier description of "oversubscription" is just plain wrong. Your friend is talking about capacity, not oversubscription. They may well have excess capacity, but they are still oversubscribed on almost every node. I can virtually guarantee that. If you have 40 subs at 15mbps, you'd be about 1x subscribed on a 16 channel D3 deployment, but when Maxx goes in, that would shoot way up, probably to 20-50x. Cable systems are oversubscribed in at least the 20-50x range, likely a lot more. My local Comcast system, with the current round of upgrades, averages something like a 25-30x oversubscription if they have all 8 QAMs running, and only 1/8 to 1/4 of the subs have Blast!. A tech one time claimed they are only running 6, which would bump it up more.


Interesting. I'll have to dig more next time I see him to find out what he meant. He probably meant excess capacity like you say, but he clearly told me none of their nodes were close to being oversubscribed. Probably just used the wrong terminology.

In other news Frontier just started rolling out limited FTTP in my city, although not my neighborhood yet, with speeds up to 1 Gbps, although not for cheap. Everyone was more or less shocked when they announced it, and no one believes they'll expand it much. Would be cool to have another option. Right now Frontier tops out at 24/2 on channel bonded VDSL or ADSL2 around here otherwise, and they're using other people's fiber for backhaul, so YMMV.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Random User 7 said:


> I've only been here two years but I've never had an issue with Comcast and pay less than $40 a month. I don't like them but I dislike Verizon more. FIOS wants to nickel and dime me on equipment charges and Verizon pissed me off where I lived previously so I just use them to keep my rate low. I like owning my modem and using my own router but if Comcast becomes an issue I will switch.


What does that $40 include? I only pay for two cablecards from Verizon @ $3.99 apiece. I have their Actiontec router, but I use my own to connect to the internet. Verizon doesn't charge me extra for the Actiontec, which is the only reason I've kept it. I've got it set up on a separate network to use for a wireless connection to a laptop.

I've never had a problem with Verizon. The techs that came out to the house have always been great and I never had a problem with customer service. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about Comcast. I guess it all depends on who you talk to. People tend to have a grudge against their TV providers no matter who they are.

If you're happy with Comcast then by all means stick with them. I just think you're missing out by not switching to FIOS.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

50 down 25 up Internet service only. I test a few times a month and most times I get the service I pay for. Reason for that is most people in my neighborhood have FIOS. My issue with Verizon goes back to POTS I had in 2006. I lived in a different state then and heard the horror stories about Comcast but they have been great for me here so no need to switch yet.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> TWC here in Louisville offers $35 for 15MB internet. I pay 45 for 12MB on Uverse. No where close to your claims of 1/4 cable. Not sure what land you live in where cable internet is comparably priced but giving you 50MB.
> 
> And no one actually gets 15 on TWC in Louisville. Like I said earlier, my brother maxes around 8. Whereas I get about 10 on Uverse.


Bigg isn't totally accurate but is probably basing that off of Comcast doubling their Internet bandwidth for a lot of customers with TV + Internet packages for the same cost but it hasn't been fully rolled out and the doubling was primarily for people subscribing to the higher tier Internet service.

For our local Comcast franchise, base Internet service with TV is $53.95 for 25Mbps but we actually get 28Mbps measured download speeds and I've not seen it drop below 25Mbps at the times I've checked.

Scott


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> It's not a question of keeping them honest. FIOS offers the best internet service available anywhere. That alone is a good reason to switch. I've had Comcast (twice in two different areas) and DirecTV prior to switching to FIOS and I would never even consider going back. I've never had a single outage since switching to FIOS almost 7 years ago. They also don't use tuning adapters, which is a huge plus.


I'm drooling over possibly moving to a FIOS area, but I'm at the point where Comcast's internet is so fast I doubt FIOS would be any better, BUT the main motivator for me is video quality, especially with my sports, since Comcast compresses the crap out of their channels, and FIOS offers a crapload of HD due to their increased capacity compared to cable.



ncted said:


> Interesting. I'll have to dig more next time I see him to find out what he meant. He probably meant excess capacity like you say, but he clearly told me none of their nodes were close to being oversubscribed. Probably just used the wrong terminology.
> 
> In other news Frontier just started rolling out limited FTTP in my city, although not my neighborhood yet, with speeds up to 1 Gbps, although not for cheap. Everyone was more or less shocked when they announced it, and no one believes they'll expand it much. Would be cool to have another option. Right now Frontier tops out at 24/2 on channel bonded VDSL or ADSL2 around here otherwise, and they're using other people's fiber for backhaul, so YMMV.


He was talking about utilization, which is what is actually being used, but somewhere in there, the wrong term got slapped on it. Utilization is just as legitimate a measure of capacity requirements, if not more than strictly oversubscription, but they still are two fundamentally different things.

It sounds like they have done some or all of the upgrades for MAXX, but haven't rolled it out yet, so I would hope their utilization is really low, since MAXX will cause if not more aggregate usage, at least some bigger spikes in data consumption, and a more "peaky" or "bursty" usage of bandwidth.



HerronScott said:


> Bigg isn't totally accurate but is probably basing that off of Comcast doubling their Internet bandwidth for a lot of customers with TV + Internet packages for the same cost but it hasn't been fully rolled out and the doubling was primarily for people subscribing to the higher tier Internet service.
> 
> For our local Comcast franchise, base Internet service with TV is $53.95 for 25Mbps but we actually get 28Mbps measured download speeds and I've not seen it drop below 25Mbps at the times I've checked.


I don't care about the doubling on the slow package, they already doubled Blast! several months ago, it's 105/20 or 105/10 now. I have 105/10. We have a bundle that's still in promo period, although we could probably get promo rates for longer, since we have a local overbuilder. Or we would switch to the overbuilder who has 110/20.

I'm basing it off of several different cable companies here in CT. We don't have TWC, but we have just about every other major provider. In no particular order:

1. Comcast: 105mbps/20mbps* Blast! *10 up in some areas
2. Thames Valley: 110mbps/20mbps
3. Metrocast: 50mbps/5mbps
4. Cox: 100mbps/?mbps
5. Charter: 60mbps/?mbps**
6. CableVision: 101mbps/?mbps

**Charter Business Class available up to 100mbps

Combined, those cable providers cover 100% of the state with at least 50mbps. AT&T, soon to be Frontier, currently covers about 50%, and of that 50%, only some are eligible for 45mbps or 24mbps service, and the remainder may be as low as 12mbps or 18mbps maximum.

FIOS takes the cake down in Greenwich. Not sure if they top out at 150/150 (BPON) or 500/500 (GPON).


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I don't care about the doubling on the slow package, they already doubled Blast! several months ago, it's 105/20 or 105/10 now. I have 105/10. We have a bundle that's still in promo period, although we could probably get promo rates for longer, since we have a local overbuilder. Or we would switch to the overbuilder who has 110/20.
> 
> I'm basing it off of several different cable companies here in CT. We don't have TWC, but we have just about every other major provider. In no particular order:
> 
> ...


Performance is the standard Comcast package at 25Mbps and the cost is more comparable for the comparison. You have to add another $10 for Blast excluding any kind of promo pricing.

Scott


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HerronScott said:


> Performance is the standard Comcast package at 25Mbps and the cost is more comparable for the comparison. You have to add another $10 for Blast excluding any kind of promo pricing.
> 
> Scott


So what? Blast! is only $10/mo more. In terms of speeds available, Blast! is perfectly reasonable for a household to have. AT&T's 45mbps plan is also reasonably priced, but has very limited availability, and is slow compared to Blast's 105mbps, and that much more so when compared to TWC's 300mbps MAXX.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> WOW, that SUCKS. The crappy cable companies are doing 50mbps, the good ones are doing 100mbps or higher. You'll get it soon enough with Maxx to blow U-Verse clear out of the water though.
> 
> Comcast 105/20 or Verizon 75/75 is reasonable in a bundle package. AT&T doesn't compete directly with Verizon except in one place in Texas, so that's sort of irrelevant. But the cable companies here all do 50-100mbps. Even our local overbuilder is doing 110/20 for $70/mo unbundled. Bundled they or Comcast are a bit cheaper. We're paying ~$110/mo for 105mbps bundled with XF Preferred and HBO as a promo deal on Comcast.
> 
> My ultimate point there is that TWC has a system capable of 300mbps, when they eventually get around to fixing their crappy system and rolling it out. AT&T's system still tops out at 24mbps for a single pair, 45mbps for pair bonding, and less if you're farther away from the VRAD. That's why AT&T is screwed unless they run GPON fiber, as cable has WAY more bandwidth than they do.


Well, so, we were Insight until like a year ago, and we're going to be Charter in another year assuming the TWC + Comcast Merger doesn't get held up. So, we'll be on our third cable provider in three years. I am sure that's playing a role in slower cable internet speeds.

Presumably AT&T will compete on price if that happens. Or else they will lose all of their local business.

Again, the main advantage with AT&T, for me, is not having draconian rules about how I use my internet. No throttling, no rules about what I do with my upstream, no caps, no limits, etc.

edit: it seems like your area has HUGE competition and I am sure that is playing a major role int he prices and speeds.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

HerronScott said:


> Bigg isn't totally accurate but is probably basing that off of Comcast doubling their Internet bandwidth for a lot of customers with TV + Internet packages for the same cost but it hasn't been fully rolled out and the doubling was primarily for people subscribing to the higher tier Internet service.
> 
> For our local Comcast franchise, base Internet service with TV is $53.95 for 25Mbps but we actually get 28Mbps measured download speeds and I've not seen it drop below 25Mbps at the times I've checked.
> 
> Scott


Wow, I've never heard of someone getting more than the advertised speed from cable. That's awesome.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I just checked my Verizon bill and it turns out I have 50/50 Mbps internet for $45/month bundled in a triple play package. They offer a 500/500 Mbps package as their top tier service in certain areas. They also offer a 75/75 plan in their popular packages. The 500/500 option is part of their Quantum service in addition to a 150/150 and 300/300 plan. I didn't see any pricing info on the description page so I'd probably have to dig deeper or select the Upgrade Now option before that shows up.

You'll notice that Verizon's upload speeds blow away anything offered by their competitors.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> Wow, I've never heard of someone getting more than the advertised speed from cable. That's awesome.


Happens all the time on Comcast, never happens on AT&T.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> Happens all the time on Comcast, never happens on AT&T.


If it happened "all the time" I would have heard of it at least once before now.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> If it happened "all the time" I would have heard of it at least once before now.


I almost always get a little more than advertised on downloads on TWC. Uploads are a different matter. I get about 4.5Mbps instead of 5Mbps.

This was the case with Verizon when I had DSL from them as well. Downloads were always faster than advertized.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> Well, so, we were Insight until like a year ago, and we're going to be Charter in another year assuming the TWC + Comcast Merger doesn't get held up. So, we'll be on our third cable provider in three years. I am sure that's playing a role in slower cable internet speeds.


Could be.



> Presumably AT&T will compete on price if that happens. Or else they will lose all of their local business.


They'll have some inertia of having customers, but eventually, their limited bandwidth will do them in, just as it will everywhere else that U-Verse co-exists with cable (which is probably 95% or more of the U-Verse system).



> Again, the main advantage with AT&T, for me, is not having draconian rules about how I use my internet. No throttling, no rules about what I do with my upstream, no caps, no limits, etc.


Cable doesn't have draconian rules either, except for bandwidth caps in a few areas, in which case, yeah, 24mbps U-Verse might start to look attractive if you can get it.



> edit: it seems like your area has HUGE competition and I am sure that is playing a major role int he prices and speeds.


Only two and a half towns in CT have the overbuilder, everywhere else it's AT&T or cable, although AT&T did kind of light a fire under cable's butt to add more HD channels and upgrade speeds, but now cable is double or quadruple what AT&T can offer for the 50% of households in the state that can get U-Verse VDSL. And ironically enough, in my area, which has the overbuilder, Comcast has one of it's worst systems in the state. It's like they had a hissy fit that they don't have a monopoly, so they just sort of gave up, although they are ironically still slightly better than the overbuilder for TV service.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Supposedly ATT will be installing gigabit in our town. I am very curious to see what it all means. Will it still be Uverse technology or something else? 

I don't think I would want to leave my Roamio's behind. Our Comcast bandwidth is pretty great. It's more a problem with with clogged routes farther down the chain thats the problem.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> Wow, I've never heard of someone getting more than the advertised speed from cable. That's awesome.


I just ran ShaperProbe and got the following (7:45pm here).

Upstream: No shaper detected.
Median received rate: 6048 Kbps.

Downstream: No shaper detected.
Median received rate: 29792 Kbps.

Can't complain. 

Actually been seeing this since they upgraded the Performance tier to the current speeds (25Mbps upload /5Mbps download) and dropped Powerboost.

Scott


----------



## NiteCourt (Mar 31, 2005)

You guys are so lucky you don't live in a Time Warner cable monopoly area. If I go internet only 'standard' internet would give me 15Mbps down and 1Mbps up for the low price of $57.99. I can't even get DSL/ADSL.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

What we need are more alternatives like this. This startup uses unlicensed radio waves to provide internet signal via a satellite like device to homes. I have begged them to offer this in my neighborhood. I will drop Comcast internet in a second.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...able-giants/rWzEaNHNfoBy89hDo9OG0J/story.html


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

NiteCourt said:


> You guys are so lucky you don't live in a Time Warner cable monopoly area. If I go internet only 'standard' internet would give me 15Mbps down and 1Mbps up for the low price of $57.99. I can't even get DSL/ADSL.


Yeah that's life on TWC, although they are rolling out much higher speeds in a few high density areas, e.g., NYC. The cost is less if bundled with cable TV, probably something like $40. On the positive side there are no caps and I do get something close to the 15 Mbps most of the time.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> What we need are more alternatives like this. This startup uses unlicensed radio waves to provide internet signal via a satellite like device to homes. I have begged them to offer this in my neighborhood. I will drop Comcast internet in a second.
> 
> http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...able-giants/rWzEaNHNfoBy89hDo9OG0J/story.html


My brother lives in very very rural MN (nearest neighbor is more than a mile away) in a cable and DSL free area but he has several choices of wireless high speed Internet that are faster and as cheap as my DSL. He uses: http://www.radiolinkinternet.com/

You need line of site for this tech which means I likely will never see it.


----------



## flashedbios (Dec 7, 2012)

Here is what I have done in my apartment complex. I subscribe to a 100mbps line and the top tier of cable service. I have two roamios that I got for Zero Down. I then told the 3 other tenants to cancel their internet and TV and go purchase Tivo Minis. I have run ethernet cable (landlord permission) to each of the other units and put a 5 port gigabit switch in each unit. Their Minis are on my account so they get my programming. They also have access to wired internet, plus I have a guest wifi network that covers the whole complex for their wireless needs. We split the bill 4 ways and we each end up paying roughly $60. It works out great for all of us, especially since two of the tenants have unpaid bills from previous addresses and would require a deposit to setup service. We are all here to stay for a very long time considering these are 2-Bedroom units for 575 / Month. Most of us could not afford to pay more than 600 for a unit. In my case, fate has made sure I never have enough money to move out. But as far as cord cutting goes, I think this is a better solution.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

dlfl said:


> Yeah that's life on TWC, although they are rolling out much higher speeds in a few high density areas, e.g., NYC. The cost is less if bundled with cable TV, probably something like $40. On the positive side there are no caps and I do get something close to the 15 Mbps most of the time.


Where there is competition, you don't have to have cable to get the $35 15/1 service. We have Uverse or Frontier channel-bonded DSL here (and multiple fiber-based solutions announced), so no one's TWC Internet bills are going up here.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

flashedbios said:


> Here is what I have done in my apartment complex. I subscribe to a 100mbps line and the top tier of cable service. I have two roamios that I got for Zero Down. I then told the 3 other tenants to cancel their internet and TV and go purchase Tivo Minis. I have run ethernet cable (landlord permission) to each of the other units and put a 5 port gigabit switch in each unit. Their Minis are on my account so they get my programming. They also have access to wired internet, plus I have a guest wifi network that covers the whole complex for their wireless needs. We split the bill 4 ways and we each end up paying roughly $60. It works out great for all of us, especially since two of the tenants have unpaid bills from previous addresses and would require a deposit to setup service. We are all here to stay for a very long time considering these are 2-Bedroom units for 575 / Month. Most of us could not afford to pay more than 600 for a unit. In my case, fate has made sure I never have enough money to move out. But as far as cord cutting goes, I think this is a better solution.


Sounds pretty illegal to me.


----------



## flashedbios (Dec 7, 2012)

whats the difference between what I am doing, and having say, a Family of 8 people. Just because we dont have the same bloodline means we should all go bankrupt paying for cable? I told you. We all live paycheck to paycheck. Most of us couldn't AFFORD separate service. but god damn it were Fu*king entitled to it


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

flashedbios said:


> whats the difference between what I am doing, and having say, a Family of 8 people. Just because we dont have the same bloodline means we should all go bankrupt paying for cable? I told you. We all live paycheck to paycheck. Most of us couldn't AFFORD separate service. but god damn it were Fu*king entitled to it


Hate to break it to you but you ain't entitled to squat. People that think they're entitled usually aren't. Cable TV, internet, and Tivos are a luxury, not a necessity. What you're doing is theft of service and is completely illegal, plain and simple. Sounds like the other tenants that left unpaid bills at a previous address are deadbeats, so good luck with that. Being down on your luck doesn't justify theft.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Cable doesn't have draconian rules either, except for bandwidth caps in a few areas, in which case, yeah, 24mbps U-Verse might start to look attractive if you can get it.


TWC forbids you from running servers. Of any kind. No servers.

That's draconian.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> Hate to break it to you but you ain't entitled to squat. People that think they're entitled usually aren't. Cable TV, internet, and Tivos are a luxury, not a necessity. What you're doing is theft of service and is completely illegal, plain and simple.


Why? He's right. They live in the same residence. They aren't forking the cable signal. The Tivo's are all on the same account. Why is what he's doing illegal? Is it because each apartment has its own address? Would it be different if they didn't have A, B, and C on the doors?

Isn't TiVo's rule "within the same residence?" It's not "family." And they are all owned by the same person.

I am not 100% sure what he's doing *IS* illegal. Convince me.


----------



## flashedbios (Dec 7, 2012)

mr.unnatural said:


> Hate to break it to you but you ain't entitled to squat. People that think they're entitled usually aren't. Cable TV, internet, and Tivos are a luxury, not a necessity. What you're doing is theft of service and is completely illegal, plain and simple. Sounds like the other tenants that left unpaid bills at a previous address are deadbeats, so good luck with that. Being down on your luck doesn't justify theft.


It absolutely does if you can get away with it. Man, you sound just like my uppity parents. Which is why i moved out the second I turned 18. I have been happier in the last 10 years ruining my credit and scamming banks (by opening cards and never paying on them) then I ever was doing things the "right way" like my parents wanted. Yes I am a 30 year old teenager who never grew up and i prefer to keep it that way.

Would this be any different than having every tennant over to my apartment to watch TV every evening? Because I'll do that if it helps stick one to the man. The low income of this country arent low income by choice. its all by fate and luck. I think we also need to tax anyone who makes over 100k. Tax them 50%. and give that 50% to people like me.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

flashedbios said:


> It absolutely does if you can get away with it. Man, you sound just like my uppity parents. Which is why i moved out the second I turned 18. I have been happier in the last 10 years ruining my credit and scamming banks (by opening cards and never paying on them) then I ever was doing things the "right way" like my parents wanted. Yes I am a 30 year old teenager who never grew up and i prefer to keep it that way.
> 
> Would this be any different than having every tennant over to my apartment to watch TV every evening? Because I'll do that if it helps stick one to the man. The low income of this country arent low income by choice. its all by fate and luck. I think we also need to tax anyone who makes over 100k. Tax them 50%. and give that 50% to people like me.


Every time you post, I regret having read it.

edit: why don't we have an ignore function on this forum for awful posters?


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

flashedbios said:


> It absolutely does if you can get away with it. Man, you sound just like my uppity parents. Which is why i moved out the second I turned 18. I have been happier in the last 10 years ruining my credit and scamming banks (by opening cards and never paying on them) then I ever was doing things the "right way" like my parents wanted. Yes I am a 30 year old teenager who never grew up and i prefer to keep it that way.
> 
> Would this be any different than having every tennant over to my apartment to watch TV every evening? Because I'll do that if it helps stick one to the man. The low income of this country arent low income by choice. its all by fate and luck. I think we also need to tax anyone who makes over 100k. Tax them 50%. and give that 50% to people like me.


So you are a deadbeat and don't mind other people paying for crap that you buy and won't pay for.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> So you are a deadbeat and don't mind other people paying for crap that you buy and won't pay for.


Don't take him seriously. He rumbles into threads, rants about wealth and wealth distribution, suggests he's entitled to free things because his life sucks, then disappears again without any coherent response.

He's not worth taking seriously.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> Why? He's right. They live in the same residence. They aren't forking the cable signal. The Tivo's are all on the same account. Why is what he's doing illegal? Is it because each apartment has its own address? Would it be different if they didn't have A, B, and C on the doors?
> 
> Isn't TiVo's rule "within the same residence?" It's not "family." And they are all owned by the same person.
> 
> I am not 100% sure what he's doing *IS* illegal. Convince me.


Each individual apartment is considered a separate residence in the eyes of the law. The US Postal Service also recognizes each one as a unique residence. Just because they're owned by the same person has no bearing on the situation.

Now if the landlord was providing the cable signal as part of a shared dwelling then that might be a different situation. The fact that flashedbios ran his own network cable between apartments indicates this isn't the case. I haven't read the Tivo customer agreement in years but I'm pretty sure what he's doing is a clearcut violation.



flashedbios said:


> It absolutely does if you can get away with it. Man, you sound just like my uppity parents. Which is why i moved out the second I turned 18. I have been happier in the last 10 years ruining my credit and scamming banks (by opening cards and never paying on them) then I ever was doing things the "right way" like my parents wanted. Yes I am a 30 year old teenager who never grew up and i prefer to keep it that way.
> 
> Would this be any different than having every tennant over to my apartment to watch TV every evening? Because I'll do that if it helps stick one to the man. The low income of this country arent low income by choice. its all by fate and luck. I think we also need to tax anyone who makes over 100k. Tax them 50%. and give that 50% to people like me.


And robbing banks is legal as long as you don't get caught, right?  Scofflaws like you are the reason the rest of us get stuck paying the bill. Your Tivo isn't going to do you much good when you're behind bars, because that's exactly where you're headed. 30 and stupid is nothing to brag about. No doubt your parents rejoiced the day you moved out. I just hope they had enough sense to change the locks. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> TWC forbids you from running servers. Of any kind. No servers.
> 
> That's draconian.


I have web and ssh servers running on my TWC connection. They've never said word one to me about them. They are for my own personal use, not public, so perhaps that is the difference?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

ncted said:


> I have web and ssh servers running on my TWC connection. They've never said word one to me about them. They are for my own personal use, not public, so perhaps that is the difference?


I think he's referring to servers that are connected to the outside world that others can access. That requires a different type of account altogether. Servers internal to your home network should be fine.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

mr.unnatural said:


> I think he's referring to servers that are connected to the outside world that others can access. That requires a different type of account altogether. Servers internal to your home network should be fine.


They are *accessible* via the Internet, but they are not for anyone's use but my own. I am not making money off the sites. I use them to monitor what is going on with my home network. Of course, I have them running on non-standard TCP ports for security reasons, so perhaps they aren't scanning for those.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Why? He's right. They live in the same residence. They aren't forking the cable signal. The Tivo's are all on the same account. Why is what he's doing illegal? Is it because each apartment has its own address? Would it be different if they didn't have A, B, and C on the doors?
> 
> Isn't TiVo's rule "within the same residence?" It's not "family." And they are all owned by the same person.
> 
> I am not 100% sure what he's doing *IS* illegal. Convince me.


There's a tenant/landlord relationship. Each apt is a separate legal residence. They aren't roommates.

You do sign a contract with cable and there is something in there (roughly speaking) about the services covering your legal residence only.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Supposedly ATT will be installing gigabit in our town. I am very curious to see what it all means. Will it still be Uverse technology or something else?


That's GPON U-Verse. Same crappy TV service, more internet bandwidth. I *think* the equipment from the RG down is identical to VDSL U-Verse, except with gigabit Ethernet from the ONT coming into the RG instead of a phone line.



atmuscarella said:


> My brother lives in very very rural MN (nearest neighbor is more than a mile away) in a cable and DSL free area but he has several choices of wireless high speed Internet that are faster and as cheap as my DSL. He uses: http://www.radiolinkinternet.com/


Not terrible, but definitely not cheap.



Grakthis said:


> TWC forbids you from running servers. Of any kind. No servers.
> 
> That's draconian.


Not really. It's consumer internet access.



mr.unnatural said:


> Each individual apartment is considered a separate residence in the eyes of the law. The US Postal Service also recognizes each one as a unique residence. Just because they're owned by the same person has no bearing on the situation.


Correct. Hence why MDUs are called MDUs. There are _multiple_ dwelling units.



> Now if the landlord was providing the cable signal as part of a shared dwelling then that might be a different situation. The fact that flashedbios ran his own network cable between apartments indicates this isn't the case. I haven't read the Tivo customer agreement in years but I'm pretty sure what he's doing is a clearcut violation.


I'm not convinced it's illegal, since it's not cable theft per se (which is completely impossible these days on many cable systems, since they all-digital and all-encrypted) but it's definitely against the T&C of the cable service, and would be grounds for termination of service. I know for a fact that a lot of people do stuff like this. I looked at some duplexes in a nearby small city, and in one case, the landlord lived in one unit, and rented the other unit out room by room, and he was sharing one cable account among both units for internet and TV. I've seen many ads for apartments that are attached to houses with TV and cable included, and you can bet there's not a separate account there.

Whats amusing is the level of effort this guy went to. You could just as easily split/amp the cable signal and have several DVRs on the cable account, and have them in different units and all split the bill.

The only way I could see this guy's setup being legal is if it was using OTA signals, as that might be covered under the law that allows an apartment building to have a common antenna, and even if it's not, on one would care anyways.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> If it happened "all the time" I would have heard of it at least once before now.


http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28975270-Speed-Report-Free-Speed-Doubling-Upgrade-Here

Ignore that Comcast doubled speeds on tiers, look at the actual numbers reported vs. the nominal tier bandwidth.

Comcast routinely gives better than advertised speeds whether you've seen anyone say it or not.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28975270-Speed-Report-Free-Speed-Doubling-Upgrade-Here
> 
> Ignore that Comcast doubled speeds on tiers, look at the actual numbers reported vs. the nominal tier bandwidth.
> 
> Comcast routinely gives better than advertised speeds whether you've seen anyone say it or not.


Comcast also has the distinction of winning the "*Worst Company in America *two out of the last four years". http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/19/6004131/comcast-the-worst-company-in-america


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> Each individual apartment is considered a separate residence in the eyes of the law. The US Postal Service also recognizes each one as a unique residence. Just because they're owned by the same person has no bearing on the situation.
> 
> Now if the landlord was providing the cable signal as part of a shared dwelling then that might be a different situation. The fact that flashedbios ran his own network cable between apartments indicates this isn't the case. I haven't read the Tivo customer agreement in years but I'm pretty sure what he's doing is a clearcut violation.


Interesting. So, basically, what I suggested, if you put a letter on each door, it's illegal. If you take those letters off and it's just a bunch of people living in one house, with a landlord who owns it, it's legal.

That's such a weird legal distinction, but I guess it might be important to stop larger dwellings.

Are we sure there's a letter on each door in the cited example?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ncted said:


> I have web and ssh servers running on my TWC connection. They've never said word one to me about them. They are for my own personal use, not public, so perhaps that is the difference?


It's because they haven't noticed. If they notice, you'll get a nasty letter, and then a phone call, then a threat to shut it down.

If they don't show up on a port scanner externally from your router, they won't care.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Not really. It's consumer internet access.


No. That's not an acceptable response. If you offer me an upload pipe, you don't get to tell me I can't use my upload pipe to run a server. You should not consider this acceptable either.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Grakthis said:


> Interesting. So, basically, what I suggested, if you put a letter on each door, it's illegal. If you take those letters off and it's just a bunch of people living in one house, with a landlord who owns it, it's legal.
> 
> That's such a weird legal distinction, but I guess it might be important to stop larger dwellings.
> 
> Are we sure there's a letter on each door in the cited example?


Having a letter or number on the door is irrelevant. Every tenant has a separate lease agreement with the landlord so that's what makes each unit unique. If they were all leasing as joint tenants then it would be an entirely different situation. Sharing services would probably be legal under these circumstances. It would be like living in a frat house rather than an apartment building.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> Having a letter or number on the door is irrelevant. Every tenant has a separate lease agreement with the landlord so that's what makes each unit unique. If they were all leasing as joint tenants then it would be an entirely different situation. Sharing services would probably be legal under these circumstances. It would be like living in a frat house rather than an apartment building.


Make me wonder, I have a 4 bedroom house I rent out. I do yearly leases with college students, each signs their own lease and they all run the same dates. They share cable and internet. Illegal or legal?


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Random User 7 said:


> Make me wonder, I have a 4 bedroom house I rent out. I do yearly leases with college students, each signs their own lease and they all run the same dates. They share cable and internet. Illegal or legal?


Are you providing the cable and internet as part of their rent? If so, you probably have to pay for Business Class or MDU service per the Ts & Cs of the cable/internet provider. If not, then each of them would need to have a separate agreement with the provider.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> It's because they haven't noticed. If they notice, you'll get a nasty letter, and then a phone call, then a threat to shut it down.
> 
> If they don't show up on a port scanner externally from your router, they won't care.


I have logwatch notify me if there are any scans against those ports. So far, I have had none on the active TCP ports from any TWC addresses. Most probes come from networks with poor reputations. I am working on a Snort box, so I can quarantine those networks. I suppose I could add TWC's networks, if I could determine from what nets their probes would originate.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Random User 7 said:


> Make me wonder, I have a 4 bedroom house I rent out. I do yearly leases with college students, each signs their own lease and they all run the same dates. They share cable and internet. Illegal or legal?


One address and 4 roommates doesn't sound "illegal" to me.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> One address and 4 roommates doesn't sound "illegal" to me.


Cable co go by full address, so one address, 4 bedrooms, one cable service is ok, as how would anybody at the cable co know the difference between you having 4 outlets in your home for your family or 4 renters. An apt building is different as each tenant has their own address as in apt XX at the building.
In my town if you had a single family home you would be breaking the zoning law if you rented out your home to more than one renter and their family, and people have been picked up for that.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> In my town if you had a single family home you would be breaking the zoning law if you rented out your home to more than one renter and their family, and people have been picked up for that.


Yeah good pt. Usually there is one lease on a home (as I remember from my college days) and you get together with friends and friends of friends and sign the lease together.

4 separate leases for one home might be illegal. Maybe the guy has bigger problems to worry about.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> Having a letter or number on the door is irrelevant. Every tenant has a separate lease agreement with the landlord so that's what makes each unit unique. If they were all leasing as joint tenants then it would be an entirely different situation. Sharing services would probably be legal under these circumstances. It would be like living in a frat house rather than an apartment building.


My now-wife, back when she was just my GF, gave me $200 a month to help pay for living expenses. Are you suggesting it was then illegal for her to watch my cable without paying for a second line?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ncted said:


> I have logwatch notify me if there are any scans against those ports. So far, I have had none on the active TCP ports from any TWC addresses. Most probes come from networks with poor reputations. I am working on a Snort box, so I can quarantine those networks. I suppose I could add TWC's networks, if I could determine from what nets their probes would originate.


It's possible TWC looks for unusual traffic and only runs a port scan if they think something is unusual. But my servers were generating VERY little traffic.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> Comcast also has the distinction of winning the "*Worst Company in America *two out of the last four years". http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/19/6004131/comcast-the-worst-company-in-america


Which, while true, is totally irrelevant to the discussion here.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

Comcast is like Bank of America, politically/socially or whatever the correct term is I can't stand them. That being said I've been a customer of both and have not had the type of problems the media reports. They have always been pleasant to deal with and I've walked away with satisfactory results. I liken it to the way many people complain about Windows. The issues are not directly the fault of the company, usually there are other factors involved.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> If you offer me an upload pipe, you don't get to tell me I can't use my upload pipe to run a server.


You're wrong. You agreed to the TWC terms of service when you signed up. If you create a publicly accessible server hosted on a non-commercial account, they can terminate your service. From the TWC Internet Acceptable Use Policy:

"Unless you have specifically subscribed for commercial grade service, the ISP Service is provided to you for personal, non-commercial use only. The service cannot be used for any enterprise purpose whatsoever whether or not the enterprise is directed toward making a profit."


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Random User 7 said:


> Make me wonder, I have a 4 bedroom house I rent out. I do yearly leases with college students, each signs their own lease and they all run the same dates. They share cable and internet. Illegal or legal?


I would say its legal because it's a single family home and not a MDU. That's the way houses were rented to both my kids when they went to college. Cable and internet were provided as part of the rent, IIRC. As far as the utility companies and other service providers are concerned, anyone who lives there shares a single account. Private citizens renting a house or a condo aren't the same as a business that rents multiple units in the same building.

Most people that rent houses tend to require just a single lease that covers anyone that lives there. Having individual leases for each student is a personal preference on your part and not a requirement. A single lease ensures that you get paid for the duration of the lease by the occupants. There really isn't any advantage to requiring each student to sign individual leases.

Homes share common areas, such as living, dining, and cooking. Apartments all have their own facilities that aren't shared with other tenants, except perhaps a clubhouse, pool, or laundry facilities. There is a clearcut distinction between the two and different rules apply to each of them.



Grakthis said:


> My now-wife, back when she was just my GF, gave me $200 a month to help pay for living expenses. Are you suggesting it was then illegal for her to watch my cable without paying for a second line?


If she was living with you under the same roof then there's no violation of any agreements with your providers.



Random User 7 said:


> Comcast is like Bank of America, politically/socially or whatever the correct term is I can't stand them. That being said I've been a customer of both and have not had the type of problems the media reports. They have always been pleasant to deal with and I've walked away with satisfactory results. I liken it to the way many people complain about Windows. The issues are not directly the fault of the company, usually there are other factors involved.


TV and internet providers are always listed in the top ten worst companies along with the big banks in every survey conducted each year. I personally haven't had many issues with Comcast, DirecTV, or Verizon over the years, but there are quite a few banks I will no longer give my business to.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

I'm with you there. Once I moved to an area with an active credit union I joined one again.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> Which, while true, is totally irrelevant to the discussion here.


Relevance in this thread. The only thing that hasn't been discussed is hemorrhoid creme.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> Relevance in this thread. The only thing that hasn't been discussed is hemorrhoid creme.


I think you'll find that most threads have usually exhausted any relevant discussion of the original topic after the first dozen or so posts and eventually diverge into tangent discussions. All it takes is an offhand comment and the wheels start coming off the cart.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Grakthis said:


> It's possible TWC looks for unusual traffic and only runs a port scan if they think something is unusual. But my servers were generating VERY little traffic.


They would definitely not see any significant amount of unusual traffic going to my IP, and I seriously doubt they probe every TCP port on every IP to see if a server is running. That said, I agree that ISPs should provide a pipe, nothing more. Requiring customers to refrain from running servers is reprehensible, especially given the near monopoly status so many of them enjoy.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

ncted said:


> Requiring customers to refrain from running servers is reprehensible, especially given the near monopoly status so many of them enjoy.


They don't prevent you from running a server, but they do ask you to pay more for the privilege. That said, it's doubtful any ISP cares unless you start using a lot of bandwidth.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Getting back on topic a bit:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ComScore-24-of-Millennials-Dont-Pay-for-TV-131065


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> Relevance in this thread. The only thing that hasn't been discussed is hemorrhoid creme.


So sorry for you problem, hope it get better soon.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

lessd said:


> So sorry for you problem, hope it get better soon.


I don't have any problem, but from some of the replies, seems like some other's might.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

ncted said:


> Getting back on topic a bit:
> 
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ComScore-24-of-Millennials-Dont-Pay-for-TV-131065


I love how these articles talk about "this is what the Millennials do", wait until they actually have a home and children - then give me a report on their habits.

If I were 20 something today, living in an urban apartment - I wouldn't have cable either!


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

bradleys said:


> I love how these articles talk about "this is what the Millennials do", wait until they actually have a home and children - then give me a report on their habits.
> 
> If I were 20 something today, living in an urban apartment - I wouldn't have cable either!


The question is, did you when you were 20-something? I did and all of my friends did. Heck, I paid for cable in my dorm room in college. If I was 18-22 again today, I think it is much less likely I would have cable.

Also, millennials refers to people who are as old as 32 years of age, so we are not just talking about kids right out of college.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

bradleys said:


> I love how these articles talk about "this is what the Millennials do", wait until they actually have a home and children - then give me a report on their habits.
> 
> If I were 20 something today, living in an urban apartment - I wouldn't have cable either!


I only have personal anecdotal evidence, but I'm not sure this is true anymore. I have 2 young nieces (4 and 6), and they're both perfectly content to stream Netflix on an iPad. They rarely watch actual TV.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

bradleys said:


> I love how these articles talk about "this is what the Millennials do", wait until they actually have a home and children - then give me a report on their habits.
> 
> If I were 20 something today, living in an urban apartment - I wouldn't have cable either!


Mid 30s, two kids, well three counting the wife and we are turning off Dish next month.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncted said:


> Getting back on topic a bit:
> 
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ComScore-24-of-Millennials-Dont-Pay-for-TV-131065


In other words, 76% of millennials get paytv.

Compare that to 86% of households that have paytv according to google searches. And I don't know about you but I would have guessed that millennials would be less likely than older people to pay for tv 10 years ago as well.

Also realize how many millennials have access to cable/satellite tv at their parents home. And with the advent of dvrs can watch that content anytime they want plus they have access to their parents' logins for cabletv services.

Still seems to me like the "cord cutting" thing is a lot of hype. If you can get a few roommates together cable tv isn't that much per person. If an apt pays $75/mo and you split it between 2 roommates then it's $37.50/mo. That ain't much. Split between 3 and it's $25/mo.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Random User 7 said:


> Mid 30s, two kids, well three counting the wife and we are turning off Dish next month.


I did it over 2 years ago. Saved over $2,000 so far.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

Subscription TV isn't going anywhere, but it's no longer a growth industry. 2013 was the first time ever their was a year over year decline in traditional TV subscriptions (cable,satellite, etc.). Their main focus now is increasing revenue per user which doesn't bode well for people still making that monthly payment.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> No. That's not an acceptable response. If you offer me an upload pipe, you don't get to tell me I can't use my upload pipe to run a server. You should not consider this acceptable either.


That's what business class internet is for. It's kind of a dick move considering that most servers use very little bandwidth, but still, home internet is home internet, and that's what you're paying for.



mr.unnatural said:


> Having a letter or number on the door is irrelevant. Every tenant has a separate lease agreement with the landlord so that's what makes each unit unique. If they were all leasing as joint tenants then it would be an entirely different situation. Sharing services would probably be legal under these circumstances. It would be like living in a frat house rather than an apartment building.


To take it a step farther, using Grakthis's logic, some buildings in NYC that have literally thousands of residents would be a single residence, which is course is a patently absurd concept. A duplex with two coax drop from the tap is an MDU just as much as a 26-story high-rise that has it's own fiber connections from TWC, RCN, and Verizon all in the same building. And a steam connection and high-voltage power handoff from ConEd, etc, etc.



lessd said:


> Cable co go by full address, so one address, 4 bedrooms, one cable service is ok, as how would anybody at the cable co know the difference between you having 4 outlets in your home for your family or 4 renters. An apt building is different as each tenant has their own address as in apt XX at the building.
> In my town if you had a single family home you would be breaking the zoning law if you rented out your home to more than one renter and their family, and people have been picked up for that.


Correct. I have 3 roommates, we are all equally on the same lease. We obviously share cable and internet. Generally, sharing a kitchen makes you roommates as opposed to separate apartments, although I'm sure there are exceptions to that somewhere.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I find it somewhat ironic that a lot of people are looking to cut the cord for TV service to save a few bucks but don't even consider getting rid of their cell phones. My cell service with just me and the wife with smart phones costs me about 2-1/2 times as much as my TV service. I think it's mainly because people's priorities and views of what's a necessity vs. luxury have changed drastically over the years with emerging technology.

For example, most people would have considered a land line phone a necessity in the past, but many people have dropped land line phones in favor of cell phones. The internet is a must have these days as it is now the way people not only communicate but also how they shop instead of heading out to the local mall. It's also a primary method of receiving news and entertainment.

I never considered cutting the cord for the simple reason I really don't pay all that much for TV compared to all of the other extras in my life. I still have a land line phone, mostly because cell service isn't the greatest in my home and it keeps me from having to give out my cell phone number. I'll let the politicians, charities, and telemarketers talk to my home answering machine instead of bothering me wherever I am. I never pick up the phone at home if I don't recognize the number (I love caller ID).


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> I find it somewhat ironic that a lot of people are looking to cut the cord for TV service to save a few bucks but don't even consider getting rid of their cell phones. My cell service with just me and the wife with smart phones costs me about 2-1/2 times as much as my TV service. I think it's mainly because people's priorities and views of what's a necessity vs. luxury have changed drastically over the years with emerging technology.
> 
> For example, most people would have considered a land line phone a necessity in the past, but many people have dropped land line phones in favor of cell phones. The internet is a must have these days as it is now the way people not only communicate but also how they shop instead of heading out to the local mall. It's also a primary method of receiving news and entertainment.
> 
> I never considered cutting the cord for the simple reason I really don't pay all that much for TV compared to all of the other extras in my life. I still have a land line phone, mostly because cell service isn't the greatest in my home and it keeps me from having to give out my cell phone number. I'll let the politicians, charities, and telemarketers talk to my home answering machine instead of bothering me wherever I am. I never pick up the phone at home if I don't recognize the number (I love caller ID).


My Cell service costs me $30 a month and I don't buy $650 phones that the carrier tells me are only $100, because the add the other $550 into the price of a 2 year contract, which most people do. I have a Nexus 4 phone which I bought unlocked for $350, and I will never buy a subsidized phone that is locked to the carrier.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I still have a land line phone, mostly because cell service isn't the greatest in my home and it keeps me from having to give out my cell phone number. I'll let the politicians, charities, and telemarketers talk to my home answering machine instead of bothering me wherever I am.


IT's illegal for those groups to call your cellphone.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

mr.unnatural said:


> I find it somewhat ironic that a lot of people are looking to cut the cord for TV service to save a few bucks but don't even consider getting rid of their cell phones. My cell service with just me and the wife with smart phones costs me about 2-1/2 times as much as my TV service. I think it's mainly because people's priorities and views of what's a necessity vs. luxury have changed drastically over the years with emerging technology.
> 
> For example, most people would have considered a land line phone a necessity in the past, but many people have dropped land line phones in favor of cell phones. The internet is a must have these days as it is now the way people not only communicate but also how they shop instead of heading out to the local mall. It's also a primary method of receiving news and entertainment.
> 
> I never considered cutting the cord for the simple reason I really don't pay all that much for TV compared to all of the other extras in my life. I still have a land line phone, mostly because cell service isn't the greatest in my home and it keeps me from having to give out my cell phone number. I'll let the politicians, charities, and telemarketers talk to my home answering machine instead of bothering me wherever I am. I never pick up the phone at home if I don't recognize the number (I love caller ID).


I've been cutting the cell phone bill as well. I have a company phone, but my wife's smartphone used to cost around $78 a month for a 1GB plan on Verizon, and she switched to Cricket, so now she only pays $35 for a 1GB plan.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

I use Ooma for home service. A few bucks a month and some nice features to boot.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> To take it a step farther, using Grakthis's logic, some buildings in NYC that have literally thousands of residents would be a single residence, which is course is a patently absurd concept. A duplex with two coax drop from the tap is an MDU just as much as a 26-story high-rise that has it's own fiber connections from TWC, RCN, and Verizon all in the same building. And a steam connection and high-voltage power handoff from ConEd, etc, etc.


My logic? I asked a question. Stop pretending like I made assertions about anything.

Also, yeah, my point was about that policy being UNJUST, not about it being illegal or not true or whatever.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

ncted said:


> I've been cutting the cell phone bill as well. I have a company phone, but my wife's smartphone used to cost around $78 a month for a 1GB plan on Verizon, and she switched to Cricket, so now she only pays $35 for a 1GB plan.


My $30 a month plan has 5GB with T Mobile.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> My $30 a month plan has 5GB with T Mobile.


My wife's $35 Cricket plan has AT&T's LTE network, which provides much better coverage, at least around here. There are also no overages. They just throttle the speed once she exceeds 1GB, which she never has done. Actually, all but one of my friends that were T-Mo users has switched in the past year to Cricket to get the better coverage. The one who hasn't travels internationally, so T-Mo is a better solution for him.

Edit: The big thing I wish I had the T-Mo users get is wi-fi calling.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Captainbob said:


> My Cell service costs me $30 a month and I don't buy $650 phones that the carrier tells me are only $100, because the add the other $550 into the price of a 2 year contract, which most people do. I have a Nexus 4 phone which I bought unlocked for $350, and I will never buy a subsidized phone that is locked to the carrier.


Stay on topic bob, or stop posting crap about how every thread goes off the rails.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

slowbiscuit said:


> Stay on topic bob, or stop posting crap about how every thread goes off the rails.


Why is THIS the only thing that comes to mind when I read that?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

https://homes.yahoo.com/news/a-look...-a-la-carte-streaming-services-202634519.html

This is an interesting article for some perspective. This quote sums up my thoughts on the subject. While, I think cord cutting or cord shaving is an absolute option for some people - having "all the channels you want" is rarely going to be cheaper.



> "The way things are priced, you won't be able to get more than four or five channels for less than your pay-TV bill now, and even getting two or three channels will be a significant portion of that bill," he said in an interview Monday. "I think because of that there will be a strong incentive for people to sign up for a (cable) bundle."


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

bradleys said:


> https://homes.yahoo.com/news/a-look...-a-la-carte-streaming-services-202634519.html
> 
> This is an interesting article for some perspective. This quote sums up my thoughts on the subject. While, I think cord cutting or cord shaving is an absolute option for some people - having "all the channels you want" is rarely going to be cheaper.


According to Nielsen, the average viewer watches 17.5 channels regularly.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/05...dreds-of-tv-channels-people-watch-17-of-them/

I watch about 7 personally.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I would say I am somewhere between those two numbers. I do not watch sports, so I could do without that all together. 

Just off the top of my head I like: Discovery, History Channel, Fox News, A&E, Animal Planet, BBC America, Cartoon Network, CMT, CNN, Comedy Central, Cooking Channel, Disney Channel, Food Network and PBS

I do watch some network shows such as the Shield and Big Bang Theory, but I definitely cannot cut the cord and get what I currently like to watch. And with the diversity of my consumption, no single subscription model is going to meet my needs.

I suspect a lot of people will be like this.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> Stay on topic bob, or stop posting crap about how every thread goes off the rails.


Just trying to blend in with the rest of the posts.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I am sure the majority of these switched to Satellite or Uverse:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Loses-184000-TV-Customers-on-the-Quarter-131100


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Churn is the new way to get discounts these days.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

bradleys said:


> https://homes.yahoo.com/news/a-look...-a-la-carte-streaming-services-202634519.html
> 
> This is an interesting article for some perspective. This quote sums up my thoughts on the subject. While, I think cord cutting or cord shaving is an absolute option for some people - having "all the channels you want" is rarely going to be cheaper.


I agree if you pay separately for all the channels you want it will cost more. In my case OTA = no need for Hulu and CBS. HBOGo I purchase, rent, or borrow DVDs the series that I enjoy, although Amazon Prime has some of the shows that I watch. Netflix is about all I pay for. I have Prime for the shipping and actually saves me money compared to not having Prime.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I find it somewhat ironic that a lot of people are looking to cut the cord for TV service to save a few bucks but don't even consider getting rid of their cell phones.


A smartphone and internet are necessities in the modern world. TV isn't. That's why people are cutting the TV cord, and not getting rid of their cell phones. Although that does bring up another point, in that some cell phone users would probably be fine with much cheaper cell service, considering that smartphone plans range from $7/mo to $100/mo or more.



Grakthis said:


> My logic? I asked a question. Stop pretending like I made assertions about anything.


You were trying to make a point that people should be able to share cable between units. Your point is wrong, and it makes no sense, but that's the point you were trying to make.



> Also, yeah, my point was about that policy being UNJUST, not about it being illegal or not true or whatever.


How is it unjust? Just because two dwelling units are connected by a common wall doesn't entitle them to start sharing cable. That makes no sense. And how do you deal with the logical extension of that argument that a 1000-unit apartment building in NYC should thus, by your logic, be able to buy a single cable account and split and amplify it 1000 times without getting a bulk carriage agreement through the cable provider? Sure, that's a totally different ballgame than a house split up into 4 apartments, but where do you draw the line? 5 units? 10? 20? None of that makes any sense.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> You were trying to make a point that people should be able to share cable between units. Your point is wrong, and it makes no sense, but that's the point you were trying to make.


This is a bald faced lie. I never made any such point. I questioning assertions to the counter, and asked someone to give me the reasoning.

RTFT.



> How is it unjust? Just because two dwelling units are connected by a common wall doesn't entitle them to start sharing cable. That makes no sense. And how do you deal with the logical extension of that argument that a 1000-unit apartment building in NYC should thus, by your logic, be able to buy a single cable account and split and amplify it 1000 times without getting a bulk carriage agreement through the cable provider? Sure, that's a totally different ballgame than a house split up into 4 apartments, but where do you draw the line? 5 units? 10? 20? None of that makes any sense.


Not that policy, kid. For ****s sake, RTFT. You're killing me here.

The policy I am talking about there, for that entire chain of discussion, is the one about upload pipe usage on internet service.

Stop responding to my posts if you can't be bothered to read them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

HarperVision said:


> Why is THIS the only thing that comes to mind when I read that?


errr... Because you have a zany mind and time to burn ? Just guessing. Perhaps projecting 

Shame on you for crapping on this thread ... wait .... too late to worry about that!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Random User 7 said:


> I agree if you pay separately for all the channels you want it will cost more. In my case OTA = no need for Hulu and CBS. HBOGo I purchase, rent, or borrow DVDs the series that I enjoy, although Amazon Prime has some of the shows that I watch. Netflix is about all I pay for. I have Prime for the shipping and actually saves me money compared to not having Prime.


I agree with you under today's "cable/satellite" model. However eliminating the middle men (cable & satellite) by declaring Internet Access a regulated utility, decoupling it from cable and requiring full open access and requiring a full Gbs build out nation wide would eventually force content providers to complete directly for consumer eye balls and the price of any "channels" primarily supported by advertising would become very reasonable if not free. Like channels that broadcast via OTA are now.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

bradleys said:


> https://homes.yahoo.com/news/a-look...-a-la-carte-streaming-services-202634519.html


CBS and Hulu mostly stream shows that are free via an antenna, and they still make you sit through commercials. Netflix only has movies and TV shows that are at least a year old and older, with the exception of the TV shows they produce. HBO is the only current service I could justify paying for, but only if it includes current shows. Aside from the major networks, which I already get for free, most of the shows I watch are not available from any of these services.

This bundle of services can't compare to even some low level cable packages when it comes to content that is desirable to watch. It's only a bargain if they provide all of the shows you like. My current package with Verizon includes all of the channels I watch for only about $15 more per month.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> The policy I am talking about there, for that entire chain of discussion, is the one about upload pipe usage on internet service.
> 
> Stop responding to my posts if you can't be bothered to read them.


Well actually, if you go back in the thread, it was very clearly about sharing cable TV service between different dwelling units in the same physical structure.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> CBS and Hulu mostly stream shows that are free via an antenna, and they still make you sit through commercials. Netflix only has movies and TV shows that are at least a year old and older, with the exception of the TV shows they produce.


Some Netflix streaming movies are much less than a year old, some are not even on DVD yet. I am not saying that you would want to watch any of these movies, but some are not bad.
Example

Venus in Fur *8 August 2014*

A Long Way Down *June 2014*


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lessd said:


> Some Netflix streaming movies are much less than a year old, some are not even on DVD yet. I am not saying that you would want to watch any of these movies, but some are not bad.
> Example
> 
> Venus in Fur *8 August 2014*
> ...


Venus in Fur is October 2013.

But point still made.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> My logic? I asked a question. Stop pretending like I made assertions about anything.
> 
> Also, yeah, my point was about that policy being UNJUST, not about it being illegal or not true or whatever.


You do realize that your old posts in this thread are still available, right?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lessd said:


> Some Netflix streaming movies are much less than a year old, some are not even on DVD yet. I am not saying that you would want to watch any of these movies, but some are not bad.
> Example
> 
> Venus in Fur *8 August 2014*
> ...


I hadn't heard of either of these movies, which is probably why they're available on Netflix much earlier than more popular releases. My point being that most movies of interest are available much sooner through other outlets, usually as optical disc rentals, than they are via streaming from Netflix. I'm pretty sure that movies on Blu-Ray and DVD are available as disc rentals from Netflix long before they're offered for streaming.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> I hadn't heard of either of these movies, which is probably why they're available on Netflix much earlier than more popular releases. My point being that most movies of interest are available much sooner through other outlets, usually as optical disc rentals, than they are via streaming from Netflix. I'm pretty sure that movies on Blu-Ray and DVD are available as disc rentals from Netflix long before they're offered for streaming.


I don't think that is news to many people. I'm reminded of the current series of GEICO ads in which the phrase "Everybody knows that" is the common theme.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Netflix is getting some fairly high profile movies sooner than 1 year these days, but I think it is just because that is the way the industry is going. For example this month:

Nov. 8: Nebraska
Nov. 22: Snowpiercer

Guardians of the Galaxy comes to Hulu on Nov. 18, although it isn't clear to me whether Plus members get that, or if that is for-rent. That is a movie that is still playing in theaters locally for me.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Venus in Fur is October 2013.
> 
> But point still made.


Small correction* Venus in Fur *was released in the USA in Aug 2014, in France it was October 2013.


----------



## Darichard (Dec 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Cord-cutting is mostly BS. It's just a right-sizing of the market, with people who don't watch TV anyways dropping their mostly-unused cable subscriptions. Most people will stay with the cord, especially when you factor in bundles and discounts and un-bundling fees for internet.


For many of us it's not. About 7% of households have cut the cable/satellite feed. Do I watch less TV without cable? Absolutely. But I still watch. The wife wanted Hallmark (maybe Lifetime?) which she was able to get via an internet subscription. HBO has announced they're doing something next year. Depending on price I might be inclined to do that.

No doubt most people will stay with a cord for the foreseeable future. But cable companies are going to see continued growth in the cord-cutter market.

It looks like Google fiber may be coming to my city in 2015, which should put considerable pressure on internet prices, or at least get them to up their level of service.


----------



## Darichard (Dec 31, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> You don't understand. I don't care what you do. I'm just pointing out any idiot could have downsized their cable package years ago if they are fine with watching just networks. IT didn't take "cutting the cord" to save a ton of money. Just like any idiot could have stayed on OTA this entire time.


You're overlooking the impact the internet has had. 10 years ago I didn't have any other option to watch Comedy Central besides cable or satellite. That's the big difference. People are not able to watch much of the content they want without cable (both legally and not). Content providers are starting to smarten up and realize it's better to get some revenue from these people than watch their content get stolen.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Well actually, if you go back in the thread, it was very clearly about sharing cable TV service between different dwelling units in the same physical structure.


Cite? Quote? See, I remember what I said. It appears you remember what you imagined I said. So go back and quote me.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> You do realize that your old posts in this thread are still available, right?


By all means, same challenge. Go back and quote my post. Find where I asserted a position. You'll discover quickly that what I did was QUESTION a position someone else took, and asked someone to give me info to support that position.

Go ahead. I'll wait.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Darichard said:


> You're overlooking the impact the internet has had. 10 years ago I didn't have any other option to watch Comedy Central besides cable or satellite. That's the big difference. People are not able to watch much of the content they want without cable (both legally and not). Content providers are starting to smarten up and realize it's better to get some revenue from these people than watch their content get stolen.


You're missing the point. All I said was the savings from "cutting the cord" is mostly from downsizing.

Douse that with a good chunk from exaggerating the cost of cable/satellite.

And then mix in not getting few shows and/or getting them a year or two later according to one's personal whim.

And you've got "cord cutting."


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> You're missing the point. All I said was the savings from "cutting the cord" is mostly from downsizing.
> 
> Douse that with a good chunk from exaggerating the cost of cable/satellite.
> 
> ...


Still spewing your mantra I see. :down:


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

Captainbob said:


> Still spewing your mantra I see. :down:


You're both right in a way. The point trip1eX and others are making is that one can trim cable bills by downsizing without eliminating cable (or fios for that matter) completely. Others may refer to this as cord-shaving and this can yield substantial monthly cost savings.

Given the disgust that most cable companies inspire, it's no wonder that going with an antenna is more satisfying than choosing a slimmed down or shaved cable subscription. The people that talk about the large savings from getting rid of getting rid of cable have often had feature laden subscriptions (or more modest programming that they were getting gouged on) and by going to and antenna and internet combination saved considerably.

Both shaving and cutting can be money savers especially when so much content is available through the internet and in HD over the air.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

poppagene said:


> You're both right in a way. The point trip1eX and others are making is that one can trim cable bills by downsizing without eliminating cable (or fios for that matter) completely. Others may refer to this as cord-shaving and this can yield substantial monthly cost savings.
> 
> Given the disgust that most cable companies inspire, it's no wonder that going with an antenna is more satisfying than choosing a slimmed down or shaved cable subscription. The people that talk about the large savings from getting rid of getting rid of cable have often had feature laden subscriptions (or more modest programming that they were getting gouged on) and by going to and antenna and internet combination saved considerably.
> 
> Both shaving and cutting can be money savers especially when so much content is available through the internet and in HD over the air.


Downsizing means you are getting less than you were. Most of the crap that is on cable is worthless in my opinion, so eliminating that for me isn't downsizing but getting rid of garbage that one is forced to pay for with a cable subscription. I guess if someone's life revolves around watching TV, and that person can find something worth watching on cable, then keeping cable is probably a necessity for them. There isn't any program that I have seen on cable or dish in the past, that I can't get streaming, and I sure like putting money in the bank every month. The amount of live TV that I can Tivo now, plus what I get on Netflix, gives me more than I can keep up with. I mean, how much TV can a person watch?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

poppagene said:


> You're both right in a way. The point trip1eX and others are making is that one can trim cable bills by downsizing without eliminating cable (or fios for that matter) completely. Others may refer to this as cord-shaving and this can yield substantial monthly cost savings.
> 
> Given the disgust that most cable companies inspire, it's no wonder that going with an antenna is more satisfying than choosing a slimmed down or shaved cable subscription. The people that talk about the large savings from getting rid of getting rid of cable have often had feature laden subscriptions (or more modest programming that they were getting gouged on) and by going to and antenna and internet combination saved considerably.
> 
> Both shaving and cutting can be money savers especially when so much content is available through the internet and in HD over the air.


As a TiVo user the stuff available through the internet works but one can't set up a season pass for those programs (at least not yet). I don't mind Netflix as I can set up my own list but I don't want to go hunting for every program I want to watch, that why I like TiVo as all the programs I want are in one list and can be watched with a few clicks of my remote, and I don't have to watch the commercials or other parts of say a news program I already know about, just fast forward. I don't see streaming replacing cable except for people that don't spend much time at home and streaming can be done on a hand held unit no matter where they are if service is available for the hand held unit. If 90% or more of your TV programs are available by OTA than the savings on cable could be good thing, in my area ABC can't be gotten without a tall outside antenna that I would not want on my home. With just OTA I could save about $80/month, but my family (inc. myself) watches many odd ball stations, like the food ch. etc. Easy to get with cable and a TiVo, and I can easily afford the extra $1000/year it costs. If the $1000 became any issue with me I would sell my 3rd car and save that $1000/year before I would give up cable TV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Darichard said:


> For many of us it's not. About 7% of households have cut the cable/satellite feed. Do I watch less TV without cable? Absolutely. But I still watch. The wife wanted Hallmark (maybe Lifetime?) which she was able to get via an internet subscription. HBO has announced they're doing something next year. Depending on price I might be inclined to do that.


As of right now, it's just a small correction of a market that was too large in the first place. It's not a fundamental shift in anything. Cord-cutting will be a small market until you can get entire sports packages via streaming.



Grakthis said:


> Cite? Quote? See, I remember what I said. It appears you remember what you imagined I said. So go back and quote me.


It's back there in the thread. I looked at. Don't deny what you said.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Bigg said:


> As of right now, it's just a small correction of a market that was too large in the first place. It's not a fundamental shift in anything. Cord-cutting will be a small market until you can get entire sports packages via streaming.
> 
> It's back there in the thread. I looked at. Don't deny what you said.


Given the conversation in the other thread about data usage. I will be very interested to see people's bill in a few years as ISP really go to town with data overages.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Given the conversation in the other thread about data usage. I will be very interested to see people's bill in a few years as ISP really go to town with data overages.


We'll see. The cable providers might be able to screw around with people in areas that don't have good options from a telco, although they'd have to get rid of Business Class, since that's Unlimited. Or maybe that's their plan. Move everyone to Business Class and get an extra $20-$30/mo.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> By all means, same challenge. Go back and quote my post. Find where I asserted a position. You'll discover quickly that what I did was QUESTION a position someone else took, and asked someone to give me info to support that position.
> 
> Go ahead. I'll wait.


Hmm. So when someone asks you a question you get all huffy and defensive?

But I'm still suggesting you should be aware that anyone can look at your old posts. Pretending that your "questions" have no ulterior meaning is unlikely to fool anyone nor is it going to win any debate points.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> It's back there in the thread. I looked at. Don't deny what you said.


So you're not going to quote it, because you know if you did, it would demonstrate that you are lying. That's the right tactic here, btw. You don't want to look bad.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> Hmm. So when someone asks you a question you get all huffy and defensive?
> 
> But I'm still suggesting you should be aware that anyone can look at your old posts. Pretending that your "questions" have no ulterior meaning is unlikely to fool anyone nor is it going to win any debate points.


The fact that anyone can go back and look at my posts is literally the best thing about the internet. Because when you make up something about what I said, you can go back and see that I never said it.

So, when I said "I am not sure X is true, convince me X is true" you think my ulterior meaning was "X is not true?" That's your suggestion?

if you believe that, you must be a horrendous person to talk to IRL. Because hypothetical discussions become impossible. It also becomes impossible to engage in any kind of devil's advocate play because of course people will just assume you're the devil. Your world must be a giant bubble of group-think. Sounds awful.


----------



## ziggy29 (Jul 26, 2002)

Bigg said:


> As of right now, it's just a small correction of a market that was too large in the first place. It's not a fundamental shift in anything. Cord-cutting will be a small market until you can get entire sports packages via streaming.


I have no doubt that will happen. It's already starting to happen a little bit. I think the NBA just announced a streaming package which, while it doesn't replace all the cable/satellite NBA games on cable/satellite networks, is a start. MLB already offers a full streaming package, MLB.tv, which provides access to just about all regular season games.

Every sporting entity is going to be looking at how this works. And I think that while it isn't here yet, there may be a "tipping point" in the future where these sports entities realize they have to play in this space, even if their cable/satellite partners don't like it.

I would tend to agree that *right now*, sports seem to be the biggest impediment to "cord cutting". But I don't think they can ignore or downplay the "a la carte" streaming market for too much longer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> So you're not going to quote it, because you know if you did, it would demonstrate that you are lying. That's the right tactic here, btw. You don't want to look bad.


Apparently you're too lazy to look back and realize that you're wrong. And you're wrong in accusing me of lying when I am, in fact, not.



ziggy29 said:


> I have no doubt that will happen. It's already starting to happen a little bit. I think the NBA just announced a streaming package which, while it doesn't replace all the cable/satellite NBA games on cable/satellite networks, is a start. MLB already offers a full streaming package, MLB.tv, which provides access to just about all regular season games.


MLB.tv is out of market only.

I doubt that the NCAA is moving anywhere anytime soon. A lot of their contracts are already tied up in cable for years to come. If there's any one channel/organization that is going to halt cord cutting, it's ESPN.

They are also very fractured, with sub-contracts and some channels getting some games, and some getting others. You basically have to have the top non-premium cable package to be able to follow your team.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> The fact that anyone can go back and look at my posts is literally the best thing about the internet. Because when you make up something about what I said, you can go back and see that I never said it.
> 
> So, when I said "I am not sure X is true, convince me X is true" you think my ulterior meaning was "X is not true?" That's your suggestion?
> 
> if you believe that, you must be a horrendous person to talk to IRL. Because hypothetical discussions become impossible. It also becomes impossible to engage in any kind of devil's advocate play because of course people will just assume you're the devil. Your world must be a giant bubble of group-think. Sounds awful.


1) Image a world with no hypothetical situations.

2) The office of devil's advocate was abolished a few years ago by the pope in order to increase the rate of saint creation.

3) Here's another question for you: is calling me the devil an _ad hominem_ attack or just desperation?


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

WatchESPN works just fine when you have a cable-subscribing friend who can add your box to their account.



Bigg said:


> If there's any one channel/organization that is going to halt cord cutting, it's ESPN.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ncbill said:


> WatchESPN works just fine when you have a cable-subscribing friend who can add your box to their account.


*Thief of service *is the least expensive way to get cable, better than cord cutting, we should start a Thread on how best to do this, and members can sign up to visit the people that get caught* in jail*.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Lighten up Francis.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ziggy29 said:


> I have no doubt that will happen. It's already starting to happen a little bit. I think the NBA just announced a streaming package which, while it doesn't replace all the cable/satellite NBA games on cable/satellite networks, is a start. MLB already offers a full streaming package, MLB.tv, which provides access to just about all regular season games.
> 
> Every sporting entity is going to be looking at how this works. And I think that while it isn't here yet, there may be a "tipping point" in the future where these sports entities realize they have to play in this space, even if their cable/satellite partners don't like it.
> 
> I would tend to agree that *right now*, sports seem to be the biggest impediment to "cord cutting". But I don't think they can ignore or downplay the "a la carte" streaming market for too much longer.


I don't see how they would ever replace linear cable with streaming for Sports. The majority of people subsidize sports for the minority of people that watch them. Streaming will never replace that because there is too much money coming from linear cable. Although I would love to be able to dump some of those expensive sports channels. But I really don't see that ever happening. Only if they are forced to do it.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> I don't see how they would ever replace linear cable with streaming for Sports. The majority of people subsidize sports for the minority of people that watch them. Streaming will never replace that because there is too much money coming from linear cable. Although I would love to be able to dump some of those expensive sports channels. But I really don't see that ever happening. Only if they are forced to do it.


"Never" is an awfully long time, aaronwt!


----------



## mgoyal (Jul 20, 2006)

we cancelled cable a few years ago to save $. we do pay for netflix, but that's it in terms of monthly (TIVO is via lifetime). there are some shows we watched, and I miss sports sometimes, but for us there was an intention to watch less tv and cutting cable helped achieve it. we used to be tivo/cablecard folks, and we've kept our tivos (but no cable cards now).

sometimes it feels like the 6 OTA stations (big 5 + CW) are more than enough and sometimes we circle back through our onscreen guide really quickly.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> *Thief of service *is the least expensive way to get cable, better than cord cutting, we should start a Thread on how best to do this, and members can sign up to visit the people that get caught* in jail*.


They're not going to put you in jail, but that does belong in the same category as torrenting, borrowing HBO Go, etc.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Yeah I could cancel my cable and ask my parents for their login info and have my family watch via streaming. I think I would get virtually everything I do now (not sure on the exceptions) and could even sell my Roamio and Minis.


----------



## Darichard (Dec 31, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> You're missing the point. All I said was the savings from "cutting the cord" is mostly from downsizing.
> 
> Douse that with a good chunk from exaggerating the cost of cable/satellite.
> 
> ...


OK, you can call it "downsizing" if you want. TV over cable is more competitive now than it was when I cut the cord. I think basic would have cost me $25 + $5 for a box when I cut (this may not be right). For people with satellite it's likely more.

But it wasn't really a cost issue for me. It was a lifestyle choice and a response to what I considered to be crappy offerings from the cable company. For me, this was exactly the point with cutting to cord.


----------



## mgoyal (Jul 20, 2006)

Darichard said:


> OK, you can call it "downsizing" if you want. TV over cable is more competitive now than it was when I cut the cord. I think basic would have cost me $25 + $5 for a box when I cut (this may not be right). For people with satellite it's likely more.
> 
> But it wasn't really a cost issue for me. It was a lifestyle choice and a response to what I considered to be crappy offerings from the cable company. For me, this was exactly the point with cutting to cord.


yeah, i concur. if the cable company offered just the local stations for $5 a month I'd pay for that. we already pay them for phone and internet.


----------



## Darichard (Dec 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> As of right now, it's just a small correction of a market that was too large in the first place. It's not a fundamental shift in anything. Cord-cutting will be a small market until you can get entire sports packages via streaming.


Respectfully disagree. The 20-somethings I work with don't have the same attachment to cable that older people (like me) do.

It could be this is just an adjustment after a saturation point. It also could be that many people realize they can get much of what they want from other sources. What percentage of cable subscribers don't get get sports packages? What happens when the sports guys start offering direct subscriptions like HBO is doing?

But again, I cut the cord because I had other options for content. I have to believe other people are going to realize this over time and walk away from it.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Nobody's going to jail.

The only people ever charged with theft of cable service were the ones hooking up to the old analog systems, but today with most systems digital there's no longer any point to re-connecting a cable since there's no way of decoding that signal w/o the cableco's authorization.

But OTT apps like WatchESPN, HBOGo, etc. let anyone with a subscription add many streaming boxes (e.g. Roku) to their account.

And how does the cableco know Fred authorized Bob's Roku for WatchESPN?

My point is it is now easier than ever for cord-cutters to access 'cable' content, so there's less reason to keep an expensive monthly cable TV subscription, even if you like sports.



lessd said:


> *Thief of service *is the least expensive way to get cable, better than cord cutting, we should start a Thread on how best to do this, and members can sign up to visit the people that get caught* in jail*.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ncbill said:


> Nobody's going to jail.
> 
> The only people ever charged with theft of cable service were the ones hooking up to the old analog systems, but today with most systems digital there's no longer any point to re-connecting a cable since there's no way of decoding that signal w/o the cableco's authorization.
> 
> ...


OK the  meant I was being sarcastic as I know nobody going to jail but splitting a cable bill with the home next door would cut down both costs by a lot, but it still* theft of service * even if you don't get caught, IMHO there is a big difference between splitting your cable service with a 3rd pty and downloading illegal stuff on the internet. (I do know somebody that got caught downloading and storing child porn, and is in jail now, was in the NY times a few years ago) With 100mb/s internet I could split that internet use with any home next to me, but I like to sleep at night, if I copy a rented movie from a DVD, that's only between me and my computer.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

lessd said:


> if I copy a rented movie from a DVD, that's only between me and my computer.


not true, the sw hits a webserver to correctly identify the disc. you would want to do this on a PC/VM that never leaves a local LAN or better yet isolated.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> 1) Image a world with no hypothetical situations.
> 
> 2) The office of devil's advocate was abolished a few years ago by the pope in order to increase the rate of saint creation.
> 
> 3) Here's another question for you: is calling me the devil an _ad hominem_ attack or just desperation?


Boy, you didn't understand anything I said. I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Random User 7 said:


> not true, the sw hits a webserver to correctly identify the disc. you would want to do this on a PC/VM that never leaves a local LAN or better yet isolated.


What SW, the software on the DVD or the software on the copy program ? If I play a DVD on my computer does someone outside my home get that information ? I guess I could unplug the internet from my computer when playing or making a copy of a DVD.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> Why? He's right. They live in the same residence. They aren't forking the cable signal. The Tivo's are all on the same account. Why is what he's doing illegal? Is it because each apartment has its own address? Would it be different if they didn't have A, B, and C on the doors?
> 
> Isn't TiVo's rule "within the same residence?" It's not "family." And they are all owned by the same person.
> 
> I am not 100% sure what he's doing *IS* illegal. Convince me.


They don't live in the same residence, they live in the same apartment complex. From a legal standpoint those are very different things.

As far as transmitting television to another residence, I would point you to the recent ruling against Aereo. In this example the antenna and server are hosted in one residence, then live TV and/or recordings are transmitted via ethernet to a different residence. It doesn't matter that one person owns all the equipment, it's a public performance. Here's a quote from Justice Breyer:

"We conclude that Aereo is not just an equipment supplier and that Aereo 'perform.'"

Substitute Aereo with flashedbios and you have your answer. The Supreme Court says it's illegal.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

A further clarification of why it's illegal is the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. From 47 U.S.C. § 553: 

"No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."

Unless the other tenants in the building are specifically authorized by the cable operator (clearly they are not), he's breaking this law and is subject to as much as a $1000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. He's also civilly liable, and can be sued by the cable company if they see fit (not likely).

Hopefully this puts to rest the unnecessary back and forth.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

The content creators don't care - they're the ones who authorized those OTT apps in the first place.

Even HBO's CEO was explicit in that he understands people share their HBO access via HBOGo - he had no problem with it since he feels that that leads to increased HBO cable subs.

BTW, broadband 'sharing' will only become more popular as speeds increase.
(& a VPN-enabled router eliminates worries about shared access).



lessd said:


> OK the  meant I was being sarcastic as I know nobody going to jail but splitting a cable bill with the home next door would cut down both costs by a lot, but it still* theft of service * even if you don't get caught, IMHO there is a big difference between splitting your cable service with a 3rd pty and downloading illegal stuff on the internet. (I do know somebody that got caught downloading and storing child porn, and is in jail now, was in the NY times a few years ago) With 100mb/s internet I could split that internet use with any home next to me, but I like to sleep at night, if I copy a rented movie from a DVD, that's only between me and my computer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Darichard said:


> Respectfully disagree. The 20-somethings I work with don't have the same attachment to cable that older people (like me) do.


There's definitely more people who are in a "gap" between college and being married and having a family, BUT I think once they form households and have kids, they will get the cord back anyways, if they don't have it now for sports.



> It could be this is just an adjustment after a saturation point. It also could be that many people realize they can get much of what they want from other sources. What percentage of cable subscribers don't get get sports packages? What happens when the sports guys start offering direct subscriptions like HBO is doing?


The challenge with sports is that you'd need a real hodge-podge of channels to put the whole season together. If they figure something out for the major sports, then cable is in trouble.



> But again, I cut the cord because I had other options for content. I have to believe other people are going to realize this over time and walk away from it.


As long as sports are locked on cable, cable is pretty safe.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The challenge with sports is that you'd need a real hodge-podge of channels to put the whole season together. If they figure something out for the major sports, then cable is in trouble.


MLB already has an excellent streaming only package. The NFL and NBA also have streaming only options, but they have some issues with blackouts and weird restrictions. I would expect those problems to go away over the next couple years which means all 3 major sports will be available without cable.

For those willing to use a VPN or other workaround, this is already a reality.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lessd said:


> I do know somebody that got caught downloading and storing child porn, and is in jail now, was in the NY times a few years ago


All child pornography is illegal. This crime is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Are you trying to assert a moral equivalence?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

This app in the google play store offers lots of premium content for free.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kmc.onechannel.tvshows&hl=en

I doubt Google would be allowed to offer this app if it facilitated theft of service.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> I do know somebody that got caught downloading and storing child porn, and is in jail now, was in the NY times a few years ago


That has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement or "theft" or any kind. In the case of child pornography, the content itself is always illegal to buy, sell, produce, distribute, promote, own, or possess. Ironically, about the only thing that *MIGHT* be legal concerning child porn would be streaming it without paying for it, as I think the Supreme Court has said you can't criminalize just the act of viewing anything under the 1st Amendment, including child porn.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jakep_82 said:


> MLB already has an excellent streaming only package.


MLB.tv is out of market only.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jakep_82 said:


> A further clarification of why it's illegal is the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. From 47 U.S.C. § 553:
> 
> "No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm convinced. I was convinced a while ago. It's weird, but I get it.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ncbill said:


> The content creators don't care - they're the ones who authorized those OTT apps in the first place.
> 
> Even HBO's CEO was explicit in that he understands people share their HBO access via HBOGo - he had no problem with it since he feels that that leads to increased HBO cable subs.
> 
> ...


They don't care now because it's the beginning of the whole shebang. But they will care in the long run.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> All child pornography is illegal. This crime is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Are you trying to assert a moral equivalence?


It not all copyright shows downloaded on BitTorrent illegal ? I not making any moral augment just saying any illegal download is well illegal, a copyright movie that you did not purchase or any child pornography are both illegal to download, but many people think theft of a movie, that OK but *UG* to downloading child pornography, there is no difference except your moral center. My sons moral center is way to the right, would never give me a copy of anything that he did not have the right to give out, software, movies, etc. If I show him a software program that he likes and wants he will purchase that program and not take a free copy from me. I am more in the moral middle, no child pornography but a copying a movie (I have no right to) I am OK with.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lessd said:


> It not all copyright shows downloaded on BitTorrent illegal ? I not making any moral augment just saying any illegal download is well illegal, a copyright movie that you did not purchase or any child pornography are both illegal to download, but many people think theft of a movie, that OK but *UG* to downloading child pornography, there is no difference except your moral center. My sons moral center is way to the right, would never give me a copy of anything that he did not have the right to give out, software, movies, etc. If I show him a software program that he likes and wants he will purchase that program and not take a free copy from me. I am more in the moral middle, no child pornography but a copying a movie (I have no right to) I am OK with.


My understanding is that the person making the content available for download (seeding) can be sued for copyright infringement, not the person downloading the content. Also, it's my understanding that if the content is hosted in certain locations outside of the US, then the copyright holder has no legal recourse. At any rate, it's usually just a civil liability and not a criminal offense.

Child pornography is classified as contraband and possession is a criminal offense. It's my understanding that copyright laws don't apply to contraband. This is why I feel that this comparison is not relevant to the discussion.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> My understanding is that the person making the content available for download (seeding) can be sued for copyright infringement, not the person downloading the content. Also, it's my understanding that if the content is hosted in certain locations outside of the US, then the copyright holder has no legal recourse. At any rate, it's usually just a civil liability and not a criminal offense.
> 
> Child pornography is classified as contraband and possession is a criminal offense. It's my understanding that copyright laws don't apply to contraband. This is why I feel that this comparison is not relevant to the discussion.


So is this different than the music industry? Because people got in trouble for just downloading music. I would think the video content would be no different?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Talking about mortality when it comes to laws and regulations is somewhat of a joke. 

There are still places on this earth where they think it is perfectly acceptable to stone a woman to death because she "allowed" herself to be raped. 

The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 was passed by the Parliament of Uganda on 20 December 2013 with the death penalty proposal dropped in favour of life in prison.

In the US it is now impossible for a person to read all the laws and regulations they are subject to in their lifetime. In my area it is common for small towns/villages to extend speed limits significantly past developed areas for reasons that have nothing to do with traffic safety, but solely to increase revenue from traffic violations. 

The reality is that people love to use government to impose their will on others. Sometimes the laws & regulations are just and sometimes they are not. 

The media industry has done just that, via copy right laws they have successfully gotten government to give them the right to sell you a product and still be able to tell you how you can use it and what you can do with it.

The whole upset here is about people sharing Internet access and sharing video content. People do both all the time sometimes by methods sanctioned by the industry and sometimes by methods not sanctioned by the industry. If someone wants to assign morality to any of it go ahead.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> My understanding is that the person making the content available for download (seeding) can be sued for copyright infringement, not the person downloading the content. Also, it's my understanding that if the content is hosted in certain locations outside of the US, then the copyright holder has no legal recourse. At any rate, it's usually just a civil liability and not a criminal offense.
> 
> Child pornography is classified as contraband and possession is a criminal offense. It's my understanding that copyright laws don't apply to contraband. This is why I feel that this comparison is not relevant to the discussion.


Possession of illegal movies is also a criminal offense, have you not taken notice of the *FBI* warning on most DVD movies!! ? The reason that most offenders are not subject to such criminal offense is called prosecutorial discretion.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Child pornography is classified as contraband and possession is a criminal offense. It's my understanding that copyright laws don't apply to contraband. This is why I feel that this comparison is not relevant to the discussion.


The other challenge with child pornography is that pornography with anyone under 18 in it is treated the same way. While real child pornography is morally reprehensible and disgusting, I don't see any moral problem with a 16 or 17 year old consciously consenting to transmission of pornographic images of themselves. The other issue is that it starts to get really murky when you're dealing with people who are of the age of consent but under 18 filming themselves or transmitting pornographic images. Although it's unlikely any legal action would ever come of it, someone who is 17 consensually sexting a picture of themselves, is technically, under federal law, transmitting child pornography via interstate commerce, and thus a federal felony, and also a state crime.

The case of Traci Lords is another place where child pornography laws make absolutely no sense, and the reaction to finding out that she was underage was utterly stupid. Even though she was 15, she was acting knowingly and consensually in producing pornography for distribution.

I don't mean to marginalize the affects of real child abuse and real child pornography, but the way that the laws are mis-used are pretty messed up sometimes.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> It not all copyright shows downloaded on BitTorrent illegal ? I not making any moral augment just saying any illegal download is well illegal, a copyright movie that you did not purchase or any child pornography are both illegal to download, but many people think theft of a movie, that OK but *UG* to downloading child pornography, there is no difference except your moral center.


I'm pretty sure you can't legally copyright child pornography, so downloading it would not actually be a copyright violation. And it is perfectly legal to download movies that are not copyrighted. Child porn is illegal because the content itself is illegal.



Bigg said:


> The other challenge with child pornography is that pornography with anyone under 18 in it is treated the same way. While real child pornography is morally reprehensible and disgusting, I don't see any moral problem with a 16 or 17 year old consciously consenting to transmission of pornographic images of themselves. The other issue is that it starts to get really murky when you're dealing with people who are of the age of consent but under 18 filming themselves or transmitting pornographic images. Although it's unlikely any legal action would ever come of it, someone who is 17 consensually sexting a picture of themselves, is technically, under federal law, transmitting child pornography via interstate commerce, and thus a federal felony, and also a state crime.


Prosecuting someone under 18 for taking a nude selfie and texting it to someone is completely idiotic. Child porn laws are meant to protect children from exploitation, not prosecute them for expressing their own sexuality. It is a complete perversion of child porn laws to prosecute someone under 18. There is actually an old doctrine in criminal law that you can't prosecute someone criminally under a law intended to protect them, but for some reason that doctrine is routinely ignored in the case of child porn laws.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> Boy, you didn't understand anything I said. I'm embarrassed for you.


Yes, you're too smart for me. I guess the reason you've resorted to personal attacks and insults is you realize I'm to dull to appreciate the brilliance of your well-reasoned arguments.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

My take is cord cutters are a reality and at the end of the day, will be the norm not the exception. But, I expect it to go the Mp3 and ITunes route (convenience and cheap shows, offered right before pay tv would have been killed forever by young internet users all using encrypted bittorent clients to download free TV.) And yes, doing that is illegal.. but so is speeding.. and I see ALOT of people speeding. Why? Because they can mostly get away with it.. same here. You may not do it.. but everyone else will. 

I would think to stop the tide of free TV, all the single cable channel apps will also have to merge into an ITunes type product where you can pick individual shows and episodes.. not channels. Because again, if today you had to go to a Sony App to buy one artists songs and a RCA app to buy another.. most would just download the MP3 illegally. It was convenience and cheapness of legal music that made illegal Mp3s unpopular.

And yes, cable operators do win regardless.. as they will increase fees for cable internet. But I'd expect competition to increase with new wireless technologies and fiber, etc.. options keeping pricing reasonable, unlike cable TV's choke hold today.

To be honest.. I love it and can't wait. I think the cable industry is one of the most crooked industries around. I'd love anything to break their "screw you, what you gonna do?" mentality when it comes to customers and make them work harder to please and keep their customers. I, myself, dropped cable 3+ years ago and will never go back. I dropped it after reading somewhere how a cable provider proudly stated that cable is like cigarettes. Some people are addicted and won't quit regardless of pricing, etc.. and that they are taking advantage of that to make up for cord cutters. And sadly.. he is right.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bschuler2007 said:


> My take is cord cutters are a reality and at the end of the day, will be the norm not the exception. But, I expect it to go the Mp3 and ITunes route (convenience and cheap shows, offered right before pay tv would have been killed forever by young internet users all using encrypted bittorent clients to download free TV.) And yes, doing that is illegal.. but so is speeding.. and I see ALOT of people speeding. Why? Because they can mostly get away with it.. same here. You may not do it.. but everyone else will.
> 
> I would think to stop the tide of free TV, all the single cable channel apps will also have to merge into an ITunes type product where you can pick individual shows and episodes.. not channels. Because again, if today you had to go to a Sony App to buy one artists songs and a RCA app to buy another.. most would just download the MP3 illegally. It was convenience and cheapness of legal music that made illegal Mp3s unpopular.
> 
> ...


Good perspectives I think, except I don't agree that the cable industry is "crooked". They are just taking advantage of the quasi-monopoly status they have in major portions of the country. Competition or onerous government regulation are the only answers to that, and the second one scares me.

But what about this:
If paying $0.79 for a 3 to 5 minute tune is acceptable, couldn't it be argued that paying $2.99 to $4.99 for a 1.5 to 2.5 hr movie, or even $10 to $15 to "own" it, is reasonable? In other words don't we already have reasonable pricing for videos? Of course convenience and availability are not yet what we desire, but those will continue to improve.

What I'm suggesting is it may not be reasonable to expect major price decreases for a la carte videos, for either movies or TV shows. Good content costs a lot to produce and you're going to have to pay for it one way or another.

Not that I'm happy about it.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

dlfl said:


> Good perspectives I think, except I don't agree that the cable industry is "crooked". They are just taking advantage of the quasi-monopoly status they have in major portions of the country. Competition or onerous government regulation are the only answers to that, and the second one scares me.


I think crooked is fairly equal to monopolistic practices. I do agree that competition is the answer, and for the majority of the population I think it will come if it isn't there already, especially as eyeballs move from linear channels to on-demand products. Where I live, there are 2 theoretically decent alternatives to cable (Frontier channel-bonded VDSL in my neighborhood, Uverse in others), but in the next few years, we can expect Google Fiber, RST Fiber, and AT&T Gigapower to show up in various neighborhoods. Also, as wireless carriers compete for customers, people will continue to get more for their money, and LTE will probably be enough for a large number of people.

The problem is there are many poorer neighborhoods and rural areas where there may never be that kind of competition, so that is where the regulations must, sadly, come in. With everything moving to the Internet, being poor becomes a serious obstacle to actually living life. Now, I don't think tax payers should fund access for under-served areas, but I do think that requiring that someone serve it if you want a communications utility license, and that the utility not gouge the poorest customers for service. If you want access to the high-profit, affluent areas, then you must provide basic service to everyone. The way that the Google roll-out in KC has gone is an example of how it shouldn't be done. TWC has had to step in to serve several neighborhoods that Google wouldn't or couldn't.

I think if ISPs were forward-thinking, they would roll their services out to everyone, offer high-quality products that low-income people can afford to the people who need it, and build some brand loyalty, so that customer sticks with them when they actually manage to pull themselves up to a higher income bracket. Offering good customer service would go a long way to build brand loyalty as well.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

There will always be alternatives to cable for TV content as long as Dish and DirecTV are available. There are issues with line of sight for setting up a dish in many instances so it may not be a viable alternative for everyone. The real monopoly is wideband internet, which is usually available only through a local cable provider. Most people that use one as their ISP also subscribes to their TV service to get a better bundled price. It's almost impossible to pay reasonable rates for internet only from any provider, at least not in my area.

I used to have Comcast for both TV and internet. I switched to DirecTV for better TV reception but Comcast was the only wideband provider in my area at the time so I had to pay through the nose for their internet service. When FIOS became available I couldn't sign up for it fast enough.

Cord cutters can get away with less TV, but try and survive without the internet. Eventually the cost of internet service is going to start climbing to cover the costs of increased bandwidth requirements. A good analogy is that although cars are more fuel efficient than ever, the cost of a gallon of gas is higher than it was when we all drove gas guzzlers. You may get better mileage, but it costs you more than ever to drive that same distance. Eventually it's going to cost us a lot more to download movies and TV shows because we're guzzling bandwidth.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

http://variety.com/2014/digital/new...rt-to-vie-with-cable-news-outlets-1201349506/


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> http://variety.com/2014/digital/new...rt-to-vie-with-cable-news-outlets-1201349506/


AdBlock Plus seems to be getting in the way of this when I try it. 

FWIW: I've been using Skynews on my AppleTV for a while, and it works just fine.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

dlfl said:


> Competition or onerous government regulation are the only answers to that, and the second one scares me.


True competition is always the first choice. But if we can't have true competition, then a regulated monopoly is always preferable to an unregulated monopoly.



dlfl said:


> But what about this:
> If paying $0.79 for a 3 to 5 minute tune is acceptable, couldn't it be argued that paying $2.99 to $4.99 for a 1.5 to 2.5 hr movie, or even $10 to $15 to "own" it, is reasonable? In other words don't we already have reasonable pricing for videos?


If I can rent a DVD from RedBox for $1.20, then $4.99 is most definitely an unreasonable price for a digital rental. It's also stupid when physical media like books and DVDs cost less than the equivalent digital media. Books and DVDs actually cost something to manufacture and ship, so why should digital media cost more to buy when it doesn't have those same manufacturing and shipping costs.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> If I can rent a DVD from RedBox for $1.20, then $4.99 is most definitely an unreasonable price for a digital rental. It's also stupid when physical media like books and DVDs cost less than the equivalent digital media. Books and DVDs actually cost something to manufacture and ship, so why should digital media cost more to buy when it doesn't have those same manufacturing and shipping costs.


It just has different manufacturing and delivery costs. The manufacturing is the encoding and storage of the content, and the delivery is just over the network. The difference is both parties pay for delivery with digital rentals, not just the recipient. I don't have the numbers to compare, but I'd guess it is actually much cheaper to deliver digitally than physically, but everybody wants their cut of the new, hot thing, so it costs the customer more.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lessd said:


> Possession of illegal movies is also a criminal offense, have you not taken notice of the *FBI* warning on most DVD movies!! ? The reason that most offenders are not subject to such criminal offense is called prosecutorial discretion.


It's my understanding that mere possession is not in and of itself a criminal offense. They would have to prove that you knew the person distributing the content did not have permission from the copyright holder. Given the anonymous nature of bittorrent, it's usually not possible to prove that element. 
It doesn't seem possible to verify the legitimacy of anything downloaded from bittorrent.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

jakep_82 said:


> A further clarification of why it's illegal is the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. From 47 U.S.C. § 553:
> 
> "No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."
> 
> ...


I disagree with your interpretation. The cable subscriber is authorized to receive the content. The cable subscriber can invite guests into their home to watch TV, even if the guest does not subscribe to cable.

The OTT apps allow a cable subscriber to watch cable TV remotely. Similarly the cable subscriber can allow guests to watch remotely also.

The cable subscriber is not required to be present when other non cable subscribers are viewing the subscribers cable programming. The cable subscriber could be away from home or just not feel like watching TV and it's still perfectly legal for other non cable subscribers to watch cable TV through any device authorized through the subscribers cable subscription and with the subscribers permission.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

IN Boston a few years ago I had a choice of 4 video providers.

Now I have a choice of 3. Cable, DISH and DTV. 

And not sure this is new but DTV has a non-sports package.

It has A&E, ABC Family, Animal Planet, BBC America, BET, Bravo, Bloomberg, CMT, CNBC, Cartoon Network, CW, Disney channels, DIScovery, E, Foxnews, Food, FX, Hallmark, HGTV, History Channel, ID, Lifetime, MSNBC, MTV, National Geographic, Nick channels, Spike, Syfy, TBS, TLC, TNT, TruTV, TVland, USA, VH1, and ABC, NBC, CBS & Fox and a few more.

$20/mo promo price. $30/mo regular price. That's pretty much all the basics except sports and AMC.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> True competition is always the first choice. But if we can't have true competition, then a regulated monopoly is always preferable to an unregulated monopoly.


Regretfully I have to agree. Although it's more complex for digital delivery, or could be if the "pipe" is deemed a regulated utility while the "content" can be purchased in a competitive market. Now we're getting into the "net neutrality" issue, and I'm not sure what is the best answer there.


tarheelblue32 said:


> If I can rent a DVD from RedBox for $1.20, then $4.99 is most definitely an unreasonable price for a digital rental. It's also stupid when physical media like books and DVDs cost less than the equivalent digital media. Books and DVDs actually cost something to manufacture and ship, so why should digital media cost more to buy when it doesn't have those same manufacturing and shipping costs.


Good point! From the consumer perspective there are frequently local transportation costs that add to the Redbox cost, e.g., 4 miles at 50 cents/mile. = $2.00. But then the cost of the internet has to be added to the digital delivery method. None of this directly explains the price difference of course. There is a possible analog in drug costs. Pharma companies sell the same drug for a fraction of the USA price in some countries just because they know they can get the higher price in the USA but can't sell at that price in the other country. They cover their research costs, other overhead (and exhorbitant profits ?) with the extra revenue from USA sales.


ncted said:


> It just has different manufacturing and delivery costs. The manufacturing is the encoding and storage of the content, and the delivery is just over the network. The difference is both parties pay for delivery with digital rentals, not just the recipient. I don't have the numbers to compare, but I'd guess it is actually much cheaper to deliver digitally than physically, but everybody wants their cut of the new, hot thing, so it costs the customer more.


I don't think just wanting their cut explains it. That only explains high prices if there isn't enough competition, which must be the real problem. Let's face it, we all want our cut -- most of us aren't charities. Competition and other factors such as regulation are what limit our cut.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

dlfl said:


> Regretfully I have to agree. Although it's more complex for digital delivery, or could be if the "pipe" is deemed a regulated utility while the "content" can be purchased in a competitive market. Now we're getting into the "net neutrality" issue, and I'm not sure what is the best answer there.


So you would prefer an unregulated monopoly to a regulated one? Great. Then let's deregulate the electric, gas, and water companies and see how much you get charged for those services.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> IN Boston a few years ago I had a choice of 4 video providers.
> 
> Now I have a choice of 3. Cable, DISH and DTV.
> 
> ...


If that is the Entertainment package, it is not new. Although that price looks more like the Select package, which actually goes all the way back to the mid 2000s. They just stopped advertising it for a while. Both of these are good options, although the lack of AMC seems ridiculous. The real killer with Directv is the equipment fees. $27/month for a 2-room Genie setup compared to $19/month for a 2-room Hopper setup. Better than Time Warner Cable at something like $33/month, and their whole-home DVR only has 2 tuners.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> So you would prefer an unregulated monopoly to a regulated one? Great. Then let's deregulate the electric, gas, and water companies and see how much you get charged for those services.


And insurance. Don't forget insurance. Ready for our 30%+ rate hikes?

http://www.wral.com/hearing-scheduled-on-nc-homeowners-insurance-rates/14096061/


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Prosecuting someone under 18 for taking a nude selfie and texting it to someone is completely idiotic. Child porn laws are meant to protect children from exploitation, not prosecute them for expressing their own sexuality. It is a complete perversion of child porn laws to prosecute someone under 18. There is actually an old doctrine in criminal law that you can't prosecute someone criminally under a law intended to protect them, but for some reason that doctrine is routinely ignored in the case of child porn laws.


Correct.



dlfl said:


> Good perspectives I think, except I don't agree that the cable industry is "crooked". They are just taking advantage of the quasi-monopoly status they have in major portions of the country.


Yeah, being a slow, lazy, complacent duopoly or monopoly isn't the same as outright corruption, although it's not good. Comcast is pretty eggregious. Here we have a local overbuilder, a little bit of U-Verse, and heavy satellite penetration, and Comcast is running a creaky 625mhz plant that apparently can't keep a channel reliably running at 615mhz. So competition doesn't always effect change, although they have upgraded systems significantly in areas that have Verizon and/or RCN available, and in several areas where they are a partial monopoly player. Go figure.



ncted said:


> The problem is there are many poorer neighborhoods and rural areas where there may never be that kind of competition, so that is where the regulations must, sadly, come in. With everything moving to the Internet, being poor becomes a serious obstacle to actually living life. Now, I don't think tax payers should fund access for under-served areas, but I do think that requiring that someone serve it if you want a communications utility license, and that the utility not gouge the poorest customers for service. If you want access to the high-profit, affluent areas, then you must provide basic service to everyone. The way that the Google roll-out in KC has gone is an example of how it shouldn't be done. TWC has had to step in to serve several neighborhoods that Google wouldn't or couldn't.


That's a complicated issue. There's really 3 issues there:

1. Decent access to the internet for everyone, even in extremely rural areas.
2. Good competition for internet in urban in suburban areas with high speeds, features, reliability, etc.
3. Basic internet access for the poor.

And the challenge is that those priorities compete with each other in some ways. Wiring rural areas is going to inherently mean a monopoly, as many of them barely can support a single provider economically, and that's going to mean high prices. And development of faster, better internet options like Gigapower and Google Fiber isn't going to help the poor (except for GF's free 5mbps package, which no other provider is going to offer), since they have to charge more to recoup investment in gigabit fiber, but they do a lot to increase competition for better, faster, higher capacity, more reliable service.

Even initiatives like NYC's request for free internet for housing projects from Comcast, while in many ways a great idea, is a double-edged sword. If Comcast has to provide free internet, let's say 5mbps/1mbps to city housing projects, you can then be 100% guaranteed that RCN and Verizon aren't going to service those buildings.



mr.unnatural said:


> There will always be alternatives to cable for TV content as long as Dish and DirecTV are available. There are issues with line of sight for setting up a dish in many instances so it may not be a viable alternative for everyone. The real monopoly is wideband internet, which is usually available only through a local cable provider. Most people that use one as their ISP also subscribes to their TV service to get a better bundled price. It's almost impossible to pay reasonable rates for internet only from any provider, at least not in my area.


Correct. Although a lot of people don't have access to satellite, enough do that it puts some competitive pressure on the cable companies in terms of their video products. The bundling is a real challenge. I think making bundling illegal for all 3 products (otherwise internet would jump $20 and TV would get less with internet) would be a step in the right direction there, but the industry would never let it happen.



> I used to have Comcast for both TV and internet. I switched to DirecTV for better TV reception but Comcast was the only wideband provider in my area at the time so I had to pay through the nose for their internet service. When FIOS became available I couldn't sign up for it fast enough.


FIOS uses some of the most extreme bundling practices in the industry. Although some people, at some times, have been able to get decent prices on internet only, the last time I looked, the internet only was around the same $90-$100/mo that the bundle with internet and TV was.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> IN Boston a few years ago I had a choice of 4 video providers. Now I have a choice of 3. Cable, DISH and DTV. And not sure this is new but DTV has a non-sports package. It has A&E, ABC Family, Animal Planet, BBC America, BET, Bravo, Bloomberg, CMT, CNBC, Cartoon Network, CW, Disney channels, DIScovery, E, Foxnews, Food, FX, Hallmark, HGTV, History Channel, ID, Lifetime, MSNBC, MTV, National Geographic, Nick channels, Spike, Syfy, TBS, TLC, TNT, TruTV, TVland, USA, VH1, and ABC, NBC, CBS & Fox and a few more. $20/mo promo price. $30/mo regular price. That's pretty much all the basics except sports and AMC.


Yeah really, what package is that called?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Yeah really, what package is that called?


Select. But looks it is $50/mo regular price. I was thrown off by the $29.99/mo slashed to $20/mo for 12 months marketing. Thought maybe it was a bit too good to be true.

First time I saw a a larger non-sports package though. Maybe it's been around awhile for all I know. I don't follow the DTV much.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> So you would prefer an unregulated monopoly to a regulated one? Great. Then let's deregulate the electric, gas, and water companies and see how much you get charged for those services.


Not at all what I said. Read it again. Regulation may be needed to control monopolistic behavior. I agree "regretfully" because of the bureaucratic waste and sluggishness to respond to technology advances that will be inherent to government control.

To give a specific example:
My only broadband provider choice is TWC and 15 Mbps costs somewhere around $45/mo. (Hard to separate from the bundles.) Government regulation might force them to lower that price significantly. But if the rate is set too low to provide a business incentive, TWC will not make the investment to provide the much higher bandwidths that I will want in the future. Without regulation, the bandwidth provided for the current price has increased from 4 Mbps to 15 Mbps in the last ten years. Now, supposedly, the regulatory agencies perform analysis and require data from utilities so they know what the fair rates should be to allow a reasonable rate of return. But this has to be a guessing game subject to error and gaming -- and politics. That the end result in several years will be better than not regulating is not a slam-dunk in my opinion.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Not at all what I said. Read it again. Regulation may be needed to control monopolistic behavior. I agree "regretfully" because of the bureaucratic waste and sluggishness to respond to technology advances that will be inherent to government control.
> 
> To give a specific example:
> My only broadband provider choice is TWC and 15 Mbps costs somewhere around $45/mo. (Hard to separate from the bundles.) Government regulation might force them to lower that price significantly. But if the rate is set too low to provide a business incentive, TWC will not make the investment to provide the much higher bandwidths that I will want in the future. Without regulation, the bandwidth provided for the current price has increased from 4 Mbps to 15 Mbps in the last ten years. Now, supposedly, the regulatory agencies perform analysis and require data from utilities so they know what the fair rates should be to allow a reasonable rate of return. But this has to be a guessing game subject to error and gaming -- and politics. That the end result in several years will be better than not regulating is not a slam-dunk in my opinion.


Yeah government control and monopoly behavior are a lot alike.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Not that this is anything new, but it really is a catch-22. 

What we have now, which is very light Internet regulation, has resulted in near-monopolies which companies have used their billions in profits to buy legislation which discourages (an understatement) competition. Where there is competition, prices are fairly low, but those places are pretty hard to find. Rural areas are underserved at best and unserved in many locations.

If you compare that to residential POTS telephone service (even if it is really VOIP like TWC Digital Phone), the prices are fairly high, and where they aren't, there are still numerous regulatory fees, but people generally get the same quality of service no matter where they live. 

Take your pick.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm optimistic that technology advances will break this catch-22, and sooner than we probably think. For example, Diana Collins has mentioned some kind of local neighborhood WiFi tower technology that sounded very promising. It greatly reduces the last-mile infrastructure cost that has lead to the quasi-monopolies in so many regions. And thus it allows bypassing most of the current cable/internet infrastructure. The STB's for this could be generic and install by just plugging them in. 

Unfortunately I just spent ten minutes searching for her posts on this and failed. I hope she is reading this thread and will fill us in.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I'm optimistic that technology advances will break this catch-22, and sooner than we probably think. For example, Diana Collins has mentioned some kind of local neighborhood WiFi tower technology that sounded very promising. It greatly reduces the last-mile infrastructure cost that has lead to the quasi-monopolies in so many regions. And thus it allows bypassing most of the current cable/internet infrastructure. The STB's for this could be generic and install by just plugging them in.
> 
> Unfortunately I just spent ten minutes searching for her posts on this and failed. I hope she is reading this thread and will fill us in.


It already exists in some places, my brother has this provider in very very rural MN:

http://www.radiolinkinternet.com/​
There is more than one provider in his area providing this type service.

Down sides are it requires line of sight and costs a little more than Cable/DSL but it works well for him and given he doesn't have cable or DSL available he is very happy to have it available.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Yeah, there are ads for what sounds like a similar service in a rural area near us in SW Ohio. It is a little pricey and I wonder if scalability, or technology advances, would allow the costs to decrease with more subscribers?

Even now, if it lives up to its promises, the price/performance point is sufficient to discourage further price hikes by TWC.

Of course line-of-sight is a major issue for urban usage.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

One of the newcomers to my market (RST Fiber) plans to use fixed wireless for the last mile. No word yet on how well it works.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> It already exists in some places, my brother has this provider in very very rural MN:


That sounds great when you have a very low density area, and nothing else is available, but it's not going to work in a higher density environment. You have to have wires and a physical plant.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> That sounds great when you have a very low density area, and nothing else is available, but it's not going to work in a higher density environment. You have to have wires and a physical plant.


Not with newer wireless standards (802.11ad for instance) and whitespace spectrum. Of course, the question is what will the cost be?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bigg said:


> That sounds great when you have a very low density area, and nothing else is available, but it's not going to work in a higher density environment. You have to have wires and a physical plant.


I finally found the discussion by Diana Collins (and you among others) about the potential of emerging wireless technology, here:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10088096#post10088096
One should follow it for several pages to get the relevant posts.

I continue to be optimistic about technology advances, even in dense urban areas.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I finally found the discussion by Diana Collins (and you among others) about the potential of emerging wireless technology, here:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10088096#post10088096
> One should follow it for several pages to get the relevant posts.
> 
> I continue to be optimistic about technology advances, even in dense urban areas.


That was a different discussion, about linear video delivery over wireless networks, and just as for large-scale wireless internet delivery, I remain very skeptical. I think GPON/xPON fiber and HFC are still going to be the standards to beat a couple decades down the line.

Hopefully, however, the wireless stuff will work well enough to cover the areas that our political system has failed to cover. I say that because there is no technical reason why we can't cover every residential structure (I use this terminology to include G.Fast in large MDUs where there is GPON FTTB) in the United States that currently has year-round road access and hardwired phone service with either HFC or fiber, it's just a political failure to get the job done. Even in extremely rural areas where HFC is impractical, fiber will get the job done, since it can go over long distances with virtually no signal loss.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bigg said:


> That was a different discussion, about linear video delivery over wireless networks, and just as for large-scale wireless internet delivery, I remain very skeptical. I think GPON/xPON fiber and HFC are still going to be the standards to beat a couple decades down the line.
> .......


I understand the context of the thread I linked was video delivery. But I would call your attention to this post of yours in that thread:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10099770#post10099770
In that post, if I understand it correctly, in response to Diana Collins pointing out some examples of impressive advances in wireless technology, you started your reply with "That's for wireless internet, not TV". That implies the context of her examples, by your own admission, included internet delivery.

Your arguments are valid points for the near future, i.e., the next five years, but just look at what has happened in the last twenty years in both TV and internet technology. I think you're being too pessimistic about wireless internet, including in dense urban areas. The current cable operators are providing a huge economic incentive driving us toward alternate technologies with their high prices and poor product.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Look at cellular data and the speeds that being achieved already.

Small towns can be served with a cell tower.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> I disagree with your interpretation. The cable subscriber is authorized to receive the content. The cable subscriber can invite guests into their home to watch TV, even if the guest does not subscribe to cable.
> 
> The OTT apps allow a cable subscriber to watch cable TV remotely. Similarly the cable subscriber can allow guests to watch remotely also.
> 
> The cable subscriber is not required to be present when other non cable subscribers are viewing the subscribers cable programming. The cable subscriber could be away from home or just not feel like watching TV and it's still perfectly legal for other non cable subscribers to watch cable TV through any device authorized through the subscribers cable subscription and with the subscribers permission.


If he wants to invite the other tenants to his apartment to watch TV that's perfectly legal. He's taking a giant step further by decrypting the cable and sending it via ethernet into other residences. This would be the same as the landlord subscribing to cable and using a splitter to run coax into each unit. Nowadays that won't work because everything is encrypted, but in the past it worked and it was very much illegal. Look up case history if you're not convinced. It doesn't matter how he's doing it, he's effectively splitting the cable and sending it into residences that aren't paying for it and aren't authorized by the cable company.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

jakep_82 said:


> If he wants to invite the other tenants to his apartment to watch TV that's perfectly legal. He's taking a giant step further by decrypting the cable and sending it via ethernet into other residences. This would be the same as the landlord subscribing to cable and using a splitter to run coax into each unit. Nowadays that won't work because everything is encrypted, but in the past it worked and it was very much illegal. Look up case history if you're not convinced. It doesn't matter how he's doing it, he's effectively splitting the cable and sending it into residences that aren't paying for it and aren't authorized by the cable company.


HE's basically becoming a cable company. He's the StraightTalk or PagePlus of the cable world.


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> HE's basically becoming a cable company. He's the StraightTalk or PagePlus of the cable world.


Yes, just without the authorization from the cableco to distribute it's product.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> In that post, if I understand it correctly, in response to Diana Collins pointing out some examples of impressive advances in wireless technology, you started your reply with "That's for wireless internet, not TV". That implies the context of her examples, by your own admission, included internet delivery.
> 
> Your arguments are valid points for the near future, i.e., the next five years, but just look at what has happened in the last twenty years in both TV and internet technology. I think you're being too pessimistic about wireless internet, including in dense urban areas. The current cable operators are providing a huge economic incentive driving us toward alternate technologies with their high prices and poor product.


From that post:



> I see it being successful for people who have no good terrestrial options now, but I don't see it competing with Comcast or Verizon.


Basically, it might be useful for rural users, since a heavily shared 10mbps uncapped or capped with a high data limit and reasonable overages is going to be a lot more attractive than LTE or satellite, and it might compete for current light suburban users, but there's no way that they are going directly up against an HFC plant or BPON, much less GPON.



trip1eX said:


> Look at cellular data and the speeds that being achieved already.
> 
> Small towns can be served with a cell tower.


If AT&T or Verizon wanted to make a serious offering in the home LTE market (something like 150GB+ for under $70/mo with additonal GB for <$.50/GB), they have the resources to do so today, by using their cellular LTE networks, rolling out more channels of LTE in those rural markets, and pushing more backhaul to those towers, but they don't have an interest in it when some users are buying their mobile LTE service and paying the mobile rates for fixed service, which ends up being insanely expensive and profitable for AT&T or Verizon. However, if they did that it would either have to be permanently installed like the Verizon cantenna, or it would have to be limited to a couple of nearby towers so that someone couldn't take it into the city and use it with the high cap.



jakep_82 said:


> If he wants to invite the other tenants to his apartment to watch TV that's perfectly legal. He's taking a giant step further by decrypting the cable and sending it via ethernet into other residences. This would be the same as the landlord subscribing to cable and using a splitter to run coax into each unit. Nowadays that won't work because everything is encrypted, but in the past it worked and it was very much illegal. Look up case history if you're not convinced. It doesn't matter how he's doing it, he's effectively splitting the cable and sending it into residences that aren't paying for it and aren't authorized by the cable company.


Correct. This has been going on for a long time, and continues to go on in some areas. I know around here it's prevalent, especially with multifamily homes. The encryption doesn't really stop anyone, they can just have a couple of boxes in their name and go from there... I'm not saying it's right, it just happens.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/cord-cutting_n_6159502.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000042


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

I was planning on cutting the cord tonight but now we are going out for some good beer. Guess it will have to wait until tomorrow.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> If that were true, and TV did not act in the way other goods act, TV companies would have no incentive to bundle TV packages, as they would make more a la carte. Hence, we can assume they have a profit incentive for doing it.


That wasn't really my point. My query concerned the actual behavior of consumers, not what the CATV companies perception of that behavior might be. Just because the companies think they will make more money, on the whole, one way versus the other doesn't make it true. I wasn't arguing that case one way or the other.



Grakthis said:


> Of course, there are other issues at play too. But at the end of the day, cable companies don't do it because their profits rely on the bundling system.


No, they do it because it is their belief higher profits are to be had by bundling. Again, just because they fear ala carte access doesn't necessarily mean it will in fact be bad for them. Frankly, I am skeptical they have enough information at their disposal to know for sure. It may or may not be true, but I submit they are trading more on their paranoia than on reliable empirical data.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> That wasn't really my point. My query concerned the actual behavior of consumers, not what the CATV companies perception of that behavior might be. Just because the companies think they will make more money, on the whole, one way versus the other doesn't make it true. I wasn't arguing that case one way or the other.
> 
> No, they do it because it is their belief higher profits are to be had by bundling. Again, just because they fear ala carte access doesn't necessarily mean it will in fact be bad for them. Frankly, I am skeptical they have enough information at their disposal to know for sure. It may or may not be true, but I submit they are trading more on their paranoia than on reliable empirical data.


They do most of it because the content providers negotiate for it. They want you to buy all of their channels in a package. CBS owns many different channels just like ABC does...


----------



## flashedbios (Dec 7, 2012)

mr.unnatural said:


> Hate to break it to you but you ain't entitled to squat. People that think they're entitled usually aren't. Cable TV, internet, and Tivos are a luxury, not a necessity. What you're doing is theft of service and is completely illegal, plain and simple. Sounds like the other tenants that left unpaid bills at a previous address are deadbeats, so good luck with that. Being down on your luck doesn't justify theft.


i really don't need to justify it. Short of shoplifting, i steal all the time. I take out credit cards with no intent of paying, and payday loans too. I find all sorts of ways to cheat companies. And i dont feel bad about it. its about as easy to me as first grade math. I care about One person. me.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

flashedbios said:


> i really don't need to justify it. Short of shoplifting, i steal all the time. I take out credit cards with no intent of paying, and payday loans too. I find all sorts of ways to cheat companies. And i dont feel bad about it. its about as easy to me as first grade math. I care about One person. me.


Can I get your name and address again?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

flashedbios said:


> i really don't need to justify it. Short of shoplifting, i steal all the time. I take out credit cards with no intent of paying, and payday loans too. I find all sorts of ways to cheat companies. And i dont feel bad about it. its about as easy to me as first grade math. I care about One person. me.


A world of *you* would be a great place to live in, if you don't pay somebody that you don't know does pay a higher price for whatever.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

jakep_82 said:


> If he wants to invite the other tenants to his apartment to watch TV that's perfectly legal. He's taking a giant step further by decrypting the cable and sending it via ethernet into other residences. This would be the same as the landlord subscribing to cable and using a splitter to run coax into each unit. Nowadays that won't work because everything is encrypted, but in the past it worked and it was very much illegal. Look up case history if you're not convinced. It doesn't matter how he's doing it, he's effectively splitting the cable and sending it into residences that aren't paying for it and aren't authorized by the cable company.


But this is the very nature of out of home streaming. The cable subscriber is decrypting the cable signal and can send it out to other residences. The other residences can not decrypt the signal unless the subscriber gives authorization. It's my understanding that there is no legal requirement for the physical presence of the subscriber at every location where they authorized decryption.

The whole concept of out of home streaming never existed in the analog days. It seems to me that the cable subscriber now has the privilege to authorize decryption at other residences and there doesn't seem to be any requirement to notify the cable company when the subscriber authorizes decryption.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

flashedbios said:


> i really don't need to justify it. Short of shoplifting, i steal all the time. I take out credit cards with no intent of paying, and payday loans too. I find all sorts of ways to cheat companies. And i dont feel bad about it. its about as easy to me as first grade math. I care about One person. me.


So, being a deadbeat and a criminal is just a career choice? 

Guess what? I won't feel bad when they come and drag your sorry ass away and prosecute you for being the loser you so clearly profess to be. I hope you like prison food and the guy in the cell with you that wants you to be his ***** because that is clearly where you're headed, dumbass.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

zalusky said:


> Can I get your name and address again?


Just forward mail to: Joliet State Prison, Joliet IL. 

Seriously, what is the point of responding to this person? He may or may not be for real. Either way he's clearly enjoying the responses he gets here (i.e., he's trolling). And if he's serious this forum isn't the place where he will get "help".


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> It seems to me that the cable subscriber now has the privilege to authorize decryption at other residences and there doesn't seem to be any requirement to notify the cable company when the subscriber authorizes decryption.


I disagree. The law is pretty clear on this point in my opinion.

"No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

http://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/ces-summit2015-pr3

"Nearly 50% of video content that U.S. consumers watch on a TV set is non-linear, up from 38% in 2010, and it is already the majority for people 18-44," said Barbara Kraus, Director, Research, Parks Associates. "The market is changing rapidly to account for these new digital media habits..."

Non necessarily cord-cutting, but an interesting trend.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> http://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/ces-summit2015-pr3
> 
> "Nearly 50% of video content that U.S. consumers watch on a TV set is non-linear, up from 38% in 2010, and it is already the majority for people 18-44," said Barbara Kraus, Director, Research, Parks Associates. "The market is changing rapidly to account for these new digital media habits..."
> 
> Non necessarily cord-cutting, but an interesting trend.


Although in reality it's a mixture of different things including a little bit of "cord cutting", that could mean two things that are definitely not cord cutting:

1. Watching things through cable VOD.
2. Watching things through MSO-supplied DVRs.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

jakep_82 said:


> I disagree. The law is pretty clear on this point in my opinion.
> 
> "No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."


The originator authorizes out of home streaming to the subscriber as part of the cable service. The subscriber authorizes the out of home device. The subscriber can allow anyone they want to watch their cable TV.

Under your interpretation, everyone in your house or remote location would have to have separate individual authorization in order to watch TV.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Although in reality it's a mixture of different things including a little bit of "cord cutting", that could mean two things that are definitely not cord cutting:
> 
> 1. Watching things through cable VOD.
> 2. Watching things through MSO-supplied DVRs.


Yes. The trend I was referring to was not watching TV live in any sense. Just a few years ago it was in the low double digits. Getting up to 50% is impressive in a relatively short time.

FWIW: Other cable companies must have much better VOD offerings than TWC or Dish or DirecTV. What I've experienced on those providers did OK in a pinch, but was not good enough to pay any money for.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

ncted said:


> FWIW: Other cable companies must have much better VOD offerings than TWC or Dish or DirecTV. What I've experienced on those providers did OK in a pinch, but was not good enough to pay any money for.


When I had Dish, VOD was only available on their DVR's because the content is actually downloaded to the hard drive from the internet. Dish was ok for VOD, but then I switched to Wide Open West and their VOD plain out sucks. I now have Comcast and their VOD is very good. You could actually get away without a DVR if you really wanted to (but not for a hoarder like me ).


----------



## jakep_82 (Oct 28, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> The originator authorizes out of home streaming to the subscriber as part of the cable service. The subscriber authorizes the out of home device. The subscriber can allow anyone they want to watch their cable TV.
> 
> Under your interpretation, everyone in your house or remote location would have to have separate individual authorization in order to watch TV.


Out of home streaming is different than what he's doing. The excerpt below is from the Xfinity On Demand FAQ page. I'm not going to waste my time digging through terms of service, but nothing you say will convince me that streaming cable to a Tivo Mini in a different apartment is legal.

"*Why can I only access certain live TV channels outside my home?*
Because live TV channels delivered outside the home are delivered over the Internet, we can only provide those channels for which we have Internet rights. In contrast, live TV streaming with X1 is not delivered over the Internet, is available only in your home, and is an extension of your XFINITY TV service. If you are outside your home and not connected to your in-home XFINITY network, you should be using the XFINITY TV Go app, which is delivered over the Internet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> Yes. The trend I was referring to was not watching TV live in any sense. Just a few years ago it was in the low double digits. Getting up to 50% is impressive in a relatively short time.
> 
> FWIW: Other cable companies must have much better VOD offerings than TWC or Dish or DirecTV. What I've experienced on those providers did OK in a pinch, but was not good enough to pay any money for.


Comcast claims to be the leader in VOD, but their system is horrible. It's slow, buggy, difficult to find anything, forces you to watch commercials, etc.

Yeah, I think that's mostly DVRs, although Netflix and other OTT SVOD and OTT PPV-VOD services are definitely speeding that trend up.


----------



## Nargg (May 25, 2012)

I haven't read all this long thread yet, but here's why I haven't cut yet. My ISP, which is also my cable operator, now has data limits on their connections. And to me they are extremely LOW! I have one of the top tier connections, and I have only 300 Gb per month. Now before any says this is a lot, it's not. I've run over the limit a LOT of times, so much so it's getting very annoying. Personally, I think this is a move on the ISPs, most of which are also TV providers, to keep people from cutting the cord. And at least for me, it's working. I can't stream the same amount of TV I watch via cable right now with these limits in place. I believe it's anti-competitive. They didn't have these limits in the past, and they don't need them now. At least not this low. I'd agree to like a terabyte per month, on all speeds of service. So if the cable company can't make money via TV, they'll rip it out of you on the connectivity?!?! I hope the FCC and the FTC are looking into this shady practice!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Nargg said:


> I haven't read all this long thread yet, but here's why I haven't cut yet. My ISP, which is also my cable operator, now has data limits on their connections. And to me they are extremely LOW! I have one of the top tier connections, and I have only 300 Gb per month. Now before any says this is a lot, it's not. I've run over the limit a LOT of times, so much so it's getting very annoying. Personally, I think this is a move on the ISPs, most of which are also TV providers, to keep people from cutting the cord. And at least for me, it's working. I can't stream the same amount of TV I watch via cable right now with these limits in place. I believe it's anti-competitive. They didn't have these limits in the past, and they don't need them now. At least not this low. I'd agree to like a terabyte per month, on all speeds of service. So if the cable company can't make money via TV, they'll rip it out of you on the connectivity?!?! I hope the FCC and the FTC are looking into this shady practice!


What ISP? If its Comcast, you can get Business Class to get around the caps, albeit for a higher monthly fee in the first place.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

jlb said:


> I won't cord cut....Ihave the thinnest cord possible. We just have lifeline cable from Comcast at $11/month for locals/HD. Works fine for us.


That's pretty cheap. Lifeline TV from SECTV is $19.49 a month. I didn't think anyone was interested in going cheaper.

You may be better off with 10 Mbps Internet from RCN for $29.99 ($5 increase for the next two years). You can watch TV on websites the next day (but no sports).


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2864...live-tv-on-the-internet-for-20-per-month.html

Not interested myself, but cord-nevers maybe?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

ncted said:


> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2864425/dish-network-launches-sling-tv-service-watch-live-tv-on-the-internet-for-20-per-month.html Not interested myself, but cord-nevers maybe?


Interesting. So the only "DVR" type service is that some shows may be able to be viewed for three days from the original air date? I wonder if PlayOn's PlayLater would work?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2864...live-tv-on-the-internet-for-20-per-month.html
> 
> Not interested myself, but cord-nevers maybe?


Maybe for ESPN. Maybe. The problem is, the cord-nevers just don't really care about broadcast TV, and people my age (25) who do care already have cable or satellite. It also depends on their sport of choice. I think this would get you the remainder of professional football that's not on OTA, but for someone like myself who is a college basketball fan, I need a combination of CBS, 4 ESPN channels, an RSN, and a few cable channels.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

ncted said:


> Not with newer wireless standards (802.11ad for instance) and whitespace spectrum. Of course, the question is what will the cost be?


Not true. First of all, 802.11ad currently has issues with non-line of site. It typically cannot penetrate walls or obstacles easily. In has huge potential, but as a direct replacement for highly concentrated urban customers, it's not the solution - at least not as currently known.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Maybe for ESPN. Maybe. The problem is, the cord-nevers just don't really care about broadcast TV, and people my age (25) who do care already have cable or satellite. It also depends on their sport of choice. I think this would get you the remainder of professional football that's not on OTA, but for someone like myself who is a college basketball fan, I need a combination of CBS, 4 ESPN channels, an RSN, and a few cable channels.


I'm without TV cord and love broadcast TV.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Maybe for ESPN. Maybe. The problem is, the cord-nevers just don't really care about broadcast TV, and people my age (25) who do care already have cable or satellite. It also depends on their sport of choice. I think this would get you the remainder of professional football that's not on OTA, but for someone like myself who is a college basketball fan, I need a combination of CBS, 4 ESPN channels, an RSN, and a few cable channels.


 I admire your dedication to the sport


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

ncted said:


> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2864...live-tv-on-the-internet-for-20-per-month.html
> 
> Not interested myself, but cord-nevers maybe?


 This could be a nice supplement to OTA, TNT and HGTV would be nice to have again.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Random User 7 said:


> I'm without TV cord and love broadcast TV.


You seem to be among the few who does use OTA. Of the cord-nevers I know, they just don't have TV, but I suspect they will get it when they are out of school and actually have a job.



tenthplanet said:


> I admire your dedication to the sport


Well, it's not really hard, since I have cable anyway.  And I live in Connecticut.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

Bigg said:


> You seem to be among the few who does use OTA. Of the cord-nevers I know, they just don't have TV, but I suspect they will get it when they are out of school and actually have a job.


LOL yeah that doesn't describe me. A wife, two kids, two dogs, and a career.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

mr.unnatural said:


> People seem to be of the mindset that dropping cable and switching to streaming services will save them money.


*Let's take a real life example.*

CBS Television is owned and operated stations. Although they bolster CBS network, temporarily divorce the distribution of television with the production of TV and licensing to affiliates.

CBS Television consists of 
16 key stations of the CBS Television Network; 
8 are aligned with the CW Television Network, 
3 independent stations; 
2 stations affiliated with MyNetworkTV
*All total they reach 43 million homes in the USA.*

Revenue from the television group is $36 per year last year per household, primarily that is from advertising, but cable fees are beginning to grow significantly.

Now CBS All Access costs consumers $6/month or $72/year. In addition consumers still must watch commercials, so CBS is realizing a significant advertising revenue on top of that (obviously no cable retransmission fees).

So revenue for CBS online streaming is significantly higher per houeshods. Maybe CBS could offer a commercial product at more $10 /month.

So multiply CBS all access by dozens of networks. How will this save consumers money? Certainly a handful of people who can watch one channel all the time will save money. But the industry is not going to commit hari-kari and let every single household spend $20-$50 a month on media.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Random User 7 said:


> LOL yeah that doesn't describe me. A wife, two kids, two dogs, and a career.


Yeah, you're definitely not the "cord-nevers" that have been referred to in the cord-cutting debate then!

When I was growing up in the '90s and '00s, I barely watched TV, and we had regular cable but still, anyone who didn't have cable was either a cheapskate or weird, although I'm sure it's different in less affluent communities.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Bigg said:


> When I was growing up in the '90s and '00s, I barely watched TV, and we had regular cable but still, anyone who didn't have cable was either a cheapskate or weird, although I'm sure it's different in less affluent communities.


Different times. All the networks went to color television in the 1965-66 season, and a color TV cost the equivalent of several thousand dollars adjusted to inflation. Still most households bought a color TV. Nowadays you are hard pressed to find most family men who spend $3000 on a TV. But if you didn't have a color TV by 1970, you didn't feel like part of the culture.

Cable TV went up by 300% from 2001 to 2011. In 2001 most people associated antenna TV with deprivation. Nowadays, you can get news and music videos from the internet.

In Britain (like other European countries) you pay a license fee to watch TV (currently $220 a year). For that money you get commercial free BBC TV, but you also get reliable antenna service that is difficult to find in the USA outside of major cities. They have over a thousand broadcast masts so that everyone can pick up lots of channels. Nearly 85% of households in Britain have antenna television which many people supplement with cable or satellite. But 45% of households have nothing else but antenna TV. In the USA only 10%-15% of households use antenna TV as their primary source of viewing.


----------



## Random User 7 (Oct 20, 2014)

My top apps for streaming in no particular order

Netflix
Amazon
WatchESPN (Great job last night for the game)
Pluto.tv
YouTube
History Channel
Smithsonian


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Pacomartin said:


> Different times. All the networks went to color television in the 1965-66 season, and a color TV cost the equivalent of several thousand dollars adjusted to inflation. Still most households bought a color TV. Nowadays you are hard pressed to find most family men who spend $3000 on a TV. But if you didn't have a color TV by 1970, you didn't feel like part of the culture.


Pretty recently it still felt like that with cable, it just isn't as pricey...


----------

