Media executives accept that the decline of cable.

[valkyrie013]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/big...e-for-world-of-50-million-tv-subscribers.html
So, read the article, they basically recognize the sea change from cable to online venue. I personally think that 50 million is a bit of a hopefull number.

So, questions:
1. Do any of you still subscribe to cable tv, and if so what is the average you are paying?
2. If you cut cable, what are you subscribed to usually? ( Netflix, Hulu, Etc.)
3. What do you think smaller channels should do? ( Food network, HGTV, DIY, etc.)
4. Anything else you want to talk about regarding this subject!

I personally cut it long ago, but do miss channels like Food network, and HGTV and a few others. Maybe 5 total that I used to watch. Wish they'd offer a cheap Sub $5 to view on there website.

 

[Non Sync]

Ironic how broadband service delivered by the cable companies threatens the initial purpose of the cable companies.

(BTW- you missed a couple of options- over the air TV or satellite TV)

 

[Snaploud]

I use Youtube TV. It basically gives me a cable tv package via streaming.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I still subscribe to cable, and the average I am paying is "way too much".

Although I live in a city, and technically have "high speed" internet (like, opposed to dial-up, I guess), my internet service is so terrible that watching streaming television is very often downright painful, with all the pixellation and the constant pausing to buffer. Sometimes it will try for five minutes and just give up and give me an error instead. Unfortunately, this is the highest level of service my provider has in this area. If they ever expanded their top-tier service into our area, I think I would actually cancel the cable, and just subscribe to Crave so I could get the new Star Trek shows. But I don't know if or when that's going to happen, so in the poll I voted that I was staying on cable for the foreseeable future.

I actually am currently subscribed to two streaming services at the moment (hence how I know it is terrible): Amazon Prime, which I mainly signed up for for the delivery benefits, not the television, and one other which I got as part of a free promotion, but will be unsubscribing to as soon as it is no longer free. Although there are many Netflix originals I would like to watch, I have never had a subscription to Netflix.

I'm just glad the new Star Trek shows are available on cable here, so I can watch them without dealing with the streaming issues.

 

[dantro]

I cut the cord maybe 2-3 years ago. Have couple of streaming services (still cheaper). Can still get local channels with digital antennas.

One of the best decisions ever made.

 

[J.T.B.]

Cut the cord in 2015. I pay for Hulu, Amazon Prime and the Criterion Channel. I swap out Hulu for Netflix when there are new episodes of a few shows. I have an OTA antenna with DVR, but rarely watch it anymore except for some PBS shows, sports and news. OTA HD picture quality is better than cable ever was, BTW.

Smaller channels will probably die out, but individual programs have the ability to build through YouTube etc. I don't think there will be a lack of content, it just doesn't have to be bundled into channels anymore. The "à la carte" model that the cable companies resisted for so long is coming about anyway by other means.

 

[Oddish]

Until I subscribed to CBS All Access to watch Trek, I had been without any cable OR streaming TV service for 20+ years. Maybe that's why my tolerance for stupid ads is so low.

I remember the precursor to cable TV: rabbit ears and rooftop antennas. If the wind blew, you read books for a couple of days.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I'm just glad the new Star Trek shows are available on cable here, so I can watch them without dealing with the streaming issues.

Yeah, I have surprisingly good internet access given where I am, but it's nice to be able to just find Trek being broadcast on cable. Not to mention, that I feel Canada overall has less choices in terms of streaming services, which makes cutting the cord more difficult. I don't even think OTA is much of a thing here either.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I'm still using it for now. I don't quite have enough streaming options to replace it or the trust in existing streaming options to continue to stream the things I want to watch on them.

I will need more stability in broadcast rights in streaming options before I finally switch.

 

[gblews]

I still have cable but would love to get rid of it. Once I figure out how to stream the sports I like, I’m dumping cable.

 

[amp]

My mom still has cable and I think the cost is getting close to $200/month for cable/internet/phone and that's without any premium channels. It's kind of ridiculous as she only watches four or five channels, but it's basically her only luxury and it would be tough for her to navigate all the ins-and-outs of cord cutting. But the replacement services are getting better and better all the time. I think sooner or later I may be able to switch her over to Hulu or Sling or one of the other options with live TV.

Really it's no surprise there are so many cord cutters. It's the fault of the cable companies who have been pushing constant rate increases for the last 20+ years. Whenever programming costs went up, they just passed them along to the customer. They figured they had a monopoly and could charge what they wished. It's classic short-term thinking. What did they expect would happen?

 

[Owain Taggart]

They figured they had a monopoly and could charge what they wished. It's classic short-term thinking. What did they expect would happen?

Yep, and it only gets worse when you don't have many options, ie when you only have a single cable company operating. Sure, there are other options such as satellite, but these options may not be the best solution depending on location.

 

[tomswift2002]

I still prefer cable, and for a few reasons. One I volunteer for the local cable company on TV Productions (similar to US Public Access Television) and the only way to get copies of my work is to record them off cable. Two, considering how in order to see the shows I like I would be paying the same amount or more to subscribe to the different apps. Third, a lot of my Favorite shows I have on DVD & Blu-Ray which offer much higher quality picture and sound than apps like Crave and Amazon can offer—-I’ve downloaded “HD” versions of movies like 2000’s “X-Men” from iTunes, and the 480p DVD kicks it’s quality! In other words, it is barely upscaled DVD Quality! And I’m not even going to mention compared to 1080p Blu-Ray or even 1080i D-VHS it doesn’t even look like the streaming file bothered to show up for the race. (Most HD streaming files are only streaming, even if you download them, at around 5-6 Mbps, which is what DVD averages at most of the time, vs HD Broadcast which, for general stations ranges from about 8-11 Mbps and sports channels around 11-19 Mbps, vs Blu-Rays average of 25-40 Mbps and D-VHS’s 27.2 to 29.2 Mbps.)

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I still have cable just because I don't like the prospect of having to pay for seven or eight different services to watch everything I want to watch and still having them jump around between services unpredictably.

 

[Random_Spock]

I still subscribe to cable, and the average I am paying is "way too much".

Although I live in a city, and technically have "high speed" internet (like, opposed to dial-up, I guess), my internet service is so terrible that watching streaming television is very often downright painful, with all the pixellation and the constant pausing to buffer. Sometimes it will try for five minutes and just give up and give me an error instead. Unfortunately, this is the highest level of service my provider has in this area. If they ever expanded their top-tier service into our area, I think I would actually cancel the cable, and just subscribe to Crave so I could get the new Star Trek shows. But I don't know if or when that's going to happen, so in the poll I voted that I was staying on cable for the foreseeable future.

I actually am currently subscribed to two streaming services at the moment (hence how I know it is terrible): Amazon Prime, which I mainly signed up for for the delivery benefits, not the television, and one other which I got as part of a free promotion, but will be unsubscribing to as soon as it is no longer free. Although there are many Netflix originals I would like to watch, I have never had a subscription to Netflix.

I'm just glad the new Star Trek shows are available on cable here, so I can watch them without dealing with the streaming issues.

Can relate there. Got Directv and AT&T internet bundled. And it's too pricey for what I get. 25mbs internet, but it's more like 18mbps to 21mbps at best.

Not subscribed to any streaming services at this time, but did have Amazon Prime for a month earlier this year and had CBS All Access for awhile too. Might get the latter for a month occasionally in order to catch up on TV shows, but other than that, that's it.

 

[valkyrie013]

Parents are paying errr.. $250 for direct tv, and some type of satalite internet or something ( there VERY Rural Area) no other option no cable, fibre, dsl, nada.. USof A needs to fix that problem .. really..

 

[tomswift2002]

Parents are paying errr.. $250 for direct tv, and some type of satalite internet or something ( there VERY Rural Area) no other option no cable, fibre, dsl, nada.. USof A needs to fix that problem .. really..

If they are very rural then satellite is probably the only option, as most companies wouldn’t want to spend the millions on infrastructure just for 1 or 2 customers.

I also know that in some cases, on the outskirts of cities there might be areas that have dial-up because they are between the main city internet routers, and the boosters for a suburb, and because there’s only like 6 houses or so, companies are not going to spend the money to get high speed to them.

 

[valkyrie013]

I have hope that 5G rollout will Fix the rural problem... But we'll see

 

[amp]

I have hope that 5G rollout will Fix the rural problem... But we'll see

Everything I've read about 5G indicates that there won't be a full-scale rollout to rural areas. I know the the phone companies have been claiming otherwise, but that's mostly just for political reasons. Any serious effort requires a very heavy investment in infrastructure that will never turn a profit. The only way rural service gets better is with huge government subsidies to cover the outlay, and that doesn't seem to be in the cards right now.

 

[tomswift2002]

Everything I've read about 5G indicates that there won't be a full-scale rollout to rural areas. I know the the phone companies have been claiming otherwise, but that's mostly just for political reasons. Any serious effort requires a very heavy investment in infrastructure that will never turn a profit. The only way rural service gets better is with huge government subsidies to cover the outlay, and that doesn't seem to be in the cards right now.

From what I’ve heard, 5G will use orbiting satellites in conjunction with the land based cell towers, so that there will be no loss of coverage anywhere in the world.

https://www.space.com/5g-in-space-internet-satellites.html

They’re even saying that 5G will be powerful enough to track every human on this planet as long as they are microchipped, as well as tracking devices in oil pipelines, cargo containers, etc. to have highly efficient tracking.