1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Interesting factoid on cord cutting effect on capable companies

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by UCLABB, Aug 9, 2017.

  1. Aug 9, 2017 #1 of 18
    UCLABB

    UCLABB Well-Known Member

    1,786
    125
    May 29, 2012
    Riverside, CA
    on CNBC this morning they were talking about the latest OTT entrant, Disney. They were commenting on how we are approaching too many choices for consumers to handle. Then they talked about the effect of cord cutting on cable companies revenues. And here's the factoid: cable companies only have to raise internet fees by $5 to offset the cost of a loss of 10% of tv subscribers. Maybe that's why Charter's stock price is well over double since the merger with twc.

    They get our money one way or another.

    Sorry about the auto correct error in title!
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  2. Aug 9, 2017 #2 of 18
    ah30k

    ah30k Active Member

    2,246
    15
    Jan 8, 2006
    I'm looking into cord cutting and using Hulu Live or YouTube Live for access to current programming. Verizon only dropped my Triple-Play pricing by about $40 to go to internet only. Which conveniently is exactly what the Hulu/YouTube offerings cost.
     
  3. jth tv

    jth tv Well-Known Member

    1,236
    49
    Nov 15, 2014
    The picture quality of Netflix and Hulu (using AppleTV) continues to improve. Recently testing the same shows, I could not see a difference between them and OTA TV even though I only have 3Mbps $15/mth internet.

    TV without commercials is so much better, funny they don't mention that in most articles about Disney plans.
     
  4. alex_h

    alex_h Member

    32
    5
    Feb 10, 2004
    Fort...
    I've had Netflix streaming forever since it was a free addon to the discs. It's pretty good for catching up on old seasons of shows and kids programming. Hulu helps when a show fails to record. But the premium commercial free Hulu is a big increase for how little we use it. I suppose without an antenna it would be fine. My older Roku gets used less and less now that the Tivo Apps don't completely suck.

    Lots of options right now, but too much and too much a la carte decision making. But getting unregulated IP-based "cable companies" seems like a competition improvement of sorts, but if the quality of my television entertainment drops to the "Netflix Original" level I'm not going to be happy.
     
  5. Jrr6415sun

    Jrr6415sun Member

    180
    1
    Mar 31, 2006
    the prices are already set at what the market will pay, so they can't just increase it by $5 without more people cancelling.
     
  6. NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,541
    154
    May 2, 2015
    A very promising development for us cord-cutters/cord-shavers/whatever-you-call-folks-who-rely-on-streaming-video is that there are technologies on the horizon that will give a lot of Americans additional choices for broadband (25 Mbps +) service in our homes. This should make the market more competitive and keep prices down. (At my house, I have switched between Comcast and AT&T a few times to get new customer deals that keep broadband costs down in the $30-40/mo. range and fast enough to stream in UHD.)

    One is 5G. Both Verizon and AT&T are going to launch 5G tech in the form of fixed wireless internet for home use before rolling it out to mobile phones. Verizon has said they will launch it in a meaningful way in 2018, after currently testing it in several cities this year. AT&T is also testing it this year in at least two cities. Verizon found that 5G wireless can support speeds well over 1 gigabit/sec. from a distance of 2,000 feet even WITHOUT direct line of sight between the transmitter and the antenna receiver at the house. 5G, whether for fixed use in-home or for mobile, is basically a fiber-based network with extremely high-frequency wireless completing the last bit of the journey to the end user. Starry is a start-up (from the guy who was behind the now-defunct Aereo) that is offering fixed-wireless 5G now in Boston, with plans to expand to other cities.

    Beyond that, Elon Musk's SpaceX is planning to begin launching low-orbit satellites in 2019 that will deliver high-speed low-latency broadband to locations across the globe, including rural areas. And SpaceX isn't alone in those ambitions, as one or more other companies have similar plans.
     
    mrizzo80 likes this.
  7. UCLABB

    UCLABB Well-Known Member

    1,786
    125
    May 29, 2012
    Riverside, CA

    Thanks for this post. Interesting. I'm going to read more about this.
     
    NashGuy likes this.
  8. slowbiscuit

    slowbiscuit FUBAR

    3,822
    133
    Sep 19, 2006
    In the ATL
    The folks that wanted a la carte cable TV are finding out that it's going to end up costing the same money as with a bundle. No one should be surprised about this.
     
  9. Rob Helmerichs

    Rob Helmerichs I am Groot! TCF Club

    40,749
    1,108
    Oct 17, 2000
    Minneapolis
    I'm not sure "capable" is the word I'd use... :D
     
  10. randian

    randian Member

    436
    19
    Jan 15, 2014
    Southeast...
    Increasing internet service as a percentage of your total bill disincentivizes cord cutting. That's one of the reasons Comcast compresses the hell out of its video.

    Even if they had the same total price (and they won't, segmentation greatly raises total cost) if you had to subscribe to 5 services instead of 1 (Netflix or Hulu) that would also depress cord cutting.
     
  11. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,370
    307
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Add in that Comcast has just about paid off enough politicians to get Net Neutrality killed so they will be able to force all the streaming services to pay them to not mess up the service's streams (thus forcing the streaming services to raises prices) and it becomes pretty clear Comcast will win no matter what.
     
  12. idksmy

    idksmy Active Member

    111
    33
    Jul 16, 2016
    There is no need to pay off politicians to kill a monumentally bad idea.
     
  13. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,370
    307
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Net Neutrality is simple I pay for Internet access, the ISP provides that via a dump pipe and does not interfere with what I want to access on the Internet in anyway. What exactly about that don't you like? or put another way, why do you want your ISP deciding where you can go on the Internet and whos' services you can buy?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
    Nickipedia and mdavej like this.
  14. idksmy

    idksmy Active Member

    111
    33
    Jul 16, 2016
    None of what you wrote was included in the proposed regulations.
     
  15. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,370
    307
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Remember Government regulation primarily say what a person/company can not do not what they can do, currently the government prevents ISPs from doing what I said because of Net Neutrality rules.

    Comcast and others claims there is no need for such regulation because they will not do any of the things I listed (Please Note some ISPs where doing exactly what I listed before the current Net Neutrality rules) and wants Net Neutrality rules rolled back.

    So if the rules are rolled back what stops ISPs from doing what I listed and what some of them were doing (specifically forcing streaming service to pay them to have their services not blocked or degraded) before the Net Neutrality rules were enforced?

    If you would like another example of what could happen look at Facebook, in some countries Facebook provides a "free" ISP service. But you can not go to many sites, any sites that Facebook considers as competition are blocked. That may be alright for a "free" ISP, but I do not want my paid ISP having anything to do with where I go or what service I purchase, just provide the dumb 2 way pipe I paid for and that's it.
     
  16. UCLABB

    UCLABB Well-Known Member

    1,786
    125
    May 29, 2012
    Riverside, CA
    I'm somewhat ambivalent about the entire concept. I agree that that sites should not be blocked. However, I'm not so sure that companies and their customers who use huge portions of the infrastructure shouldn't pay more than others who use little. I liken this to cell phone service where heavier users pay more. Should all cell phone users pay the same price no matter how much data they use?
     
  17. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,370
    307
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    That is another question - if an ISP wants to price based an data usage they can see how the market reacts. My home phone is an unlimited plan - when I was working from home many days I would be on the phone 4-5 hours now that I don't work from home I don't use it 4-5 hours a month. Same with my Internet if there is a cap I don't know about it, I expect the pipe to be there when ever I want to use it. In the end I have no idea if my using more telephone more hours or more bandwidth over all adds significantly to the companies operating costs. I assume they have to size stuff for peak usage and that is what costs companies the money not over all usage. So the only people who really kind of subsidize others are those who don't use what ever during peak periods.
     
  18. dfreybur

    dfreybur Member

    125
    4
    Jan 27, 2006
    I think I may have been instrumental in getting at least one mobile phone company to lose interest in satellite phones and the same math economics applies to satellite internet.

    Year about 2003-4 we were at new employee orientation with an exec doing the training. In the Q&A session one of the other new folks asked about satellite service. I said the math didn't work out and sort of in the style of Big Bang Theory I offered to do the math on the white board. The exec stared at me and waved me to the board.

    A satellite is a wireless tower. It is a big tower that's very tall, but it's also a tower that is severely limited in power. Only certain bands make it through the atmosphere so it's a tower with limited bandwidth as well. Unless it has directional antennas it can only have one conversation per channel. Near Earth orbiting satellites launched on the cheap can't have directional antennas even as phased arrays. I'd started my civilian career at NASA JPL doing ground link software for unmanned space probes so I knew about LEO payload prices. At the time I was new to the mobile industry so I'd just looked up atmosphere transparency to orbit and atmospheric absorption of regular ground transmissions (an advantage not a disadvantage down here). I've done channel transmission math so I knew how much bandwidth was per conversation. It turns out one tower (satellite) can only support 5-10 thousand conversations at once and the lower the transmitting power the smaller the number. Transmission power is severely limited per mobile phone so the number of conversations that can be supported is lower than 5-10 thousand.

    More than once the exec used the print function to record my drawings and equations.

    Basically we need fusion rockets to get enough satellites in orbit to make it economical to do mobile phones to orbit. The physics are identical and the economics are nearly identical for broadband data.

    Musk may be doing data satellites but it won't be to my home. Rural ranches probably. Smaller region cable companies definitely.

    I've read articles about balloons doing towers. I wonder how the atmospheric absorption math works out for those.
     
    tim1724 likes this.

Share This Page