Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't watch sports (a-I couldn't care any less about them, and b-I don't have cable or a dish or even broadcast reception, just streaming) but last I checked, sports continue to make money hand over fist. Case in point: NFL revenues increased over the last fiscal year from 6 billion split between the 32 franchises to 7.2 billion - that's not just making money, that's an enormous profit increase.
In any case, for non-sports programming streaming the loss via cable/dish is going to streaming, which still provides revenues for the content producers.
I just changed my TV/telephone/internet. Unbundled the TV but kept the same service which I like. Moved to basic telephone because we now use Skype for long distance and international and upgraded my internet from 7Mbps to 70Mbps. And the whole is now costing $50/month less than before.
And Comcast is now introducing usage caps to make sure you don't save any money.
We need more competition in the high speed internet market. Sometimes, this actually requires some regulation. The cable companies want to charge customers per usage yet not to be regulated as utilities.
Almost all cable companies offer just Internet service as a stand alone service. This is what we get from TWC.
Not true. Well, in a way, yes. But they charge you MORE to just get internet alone without tv. Comcast charges $90+ for just plain internet and $89 for bundled tv and internet. So we are stuck with basic cable which we seldom watch.
Not true. Well, in a way, yes. But they charge you MORE to just get internet alone without tv. Comcast charges $90+ for just plain internet and $89 for bundled tv and internet. So we are stuck with basic cable which we seldom watch.
Aren't there any other service providers in your area?
NBC did it during the last Winter Olympics. There was broadcast right until the games started and then during viewing hours they simply reduced broadcast power or otherwise made sure their broadcast wasn't very good, enough to make watching them worthless.
Right after the games were over, back to normal.
It is not that NBC reduced power that caused the problem. Power and quality of your picture were reduced by the sheer number of people that were watching T.V. at the time. There is only so much power as you call it available at one time. If there are fewer people running their T.V. the signal gets better. If there are more people using it, the picture quality goes down. The system is designed for average use. When all available T.V. sets are running, they are overloading the system and the picture quality goes down.
The problem in my area is finding internet service apart from the cable companies. We could do without TV completely, but need the internet for business, school, etc.
If you have Comcast you should be happy, not trying to find something better. Their internet speeds are the best around with averages at 50 and the extreme at 105 currently. That puts other services to shame, especially ATT's U-verse.
Not true. Well, in a way, yes. But they charge you MORE to just get internet alone without tv. Comcast charges $90+ for just plain internet and $89 for bundled tv and internet. So we are stuck with basic cable which we seldom watch.
Not all cable companies are as bad as Comcast. Since Google Fiber is being installed in my city, TWC is falling all over itself to keep customers.
The problem in my area is finding internet service apart from the cable companies. We could do without TV completely, but need the internet for business, school, etc.
Why can't you just get internet service? Comcast, Frontier, etc., offer stand alone internet. Of course they try to suck you in with bundles that they claim are cheaper, but they are generally short term lost leaders to get you hooked, and people rarely stop the cable services immediately when the price goes up.
We just get internet and use services like Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime to watch regular programming, You an also just get an HDTV antenna for free OTA (over the air) local channels.
The old paradigm of "Must See TV" is over! People want to watch, when they want to. Binge watching is more the rule than the exception. Streaming networks offer more variety and the opportunity to watch programing you never heard of before. It is truly a whole new ballgame when it comes to viewing the big screen hanging on your wall these days!!
If you have Comcast you should be happy, not trying to find something better. Their internet speeds are the best around with averages at 50 and the extreme at 105 currently. That puts other services to shame, especially ATT's U-verse.
`
It depends. Although I do agree with AT&T being a sorry excuse for service. But Comcast is only as fast as they need to be to stay competitive in any given market.
Our problem is that we don't really have a system of competing providers whose main business is high speed internet. What we have is a network of poorly regulated local cable monopolies who are also selling Internet, and for whom it is a major threat to their established source of revenue. So they will make sure they get their money from you one way or another. If they can't sell you overpriced TV packages because of services like Netflix and Hulu, then they will charge you an arm and a leg for Internet access.
What we need is some kind of disruptive technology that would allow to separate Internet providers from content providers, especially cable companies whose whole mentality has been shaped by decades of being monopolies.
Surely you know that if this becomes pervasive, you'll pay for for few channels no matter what you do.
Instead of paying say $40 for 200 channels, you'll pay $9.95 per channel. Do you really think that subscribing to fewer channels will reduce prices? Not a chance. Perhaps in the beginning a little but after that, knowing which channels you find "essential" and are hooked on, they will also raise the prices just for you since you'll have individual billing.
I stopped using cable a long time ago. You can get by without it quite easily. What will happen though is that the major networks will do what the oil companies do, start maintenance programs, reduce power consumption and thereby reduce the broadcast power and so on.
NBC did it during the last Winter Olympics. There was broadcast right until the games started and then during viewing hours they simply reduced broadcast power or otherwise made sure their broadcast wasn't very good, enough to make watching them worthless.
Right after the games were over, back to normal.
That is true, but if you use an OTA antenna for the network channels and get Amazon Prime and Netflix, you are spending less than $20 a month for what you would have paid $35 for Cable and you would have a ton of useless add on channels you are forced to take.
To me, I prefer the freedom of choosing exactly what I want to watch, even if it seems counter-intuitive financially. Luckily, so far, that hasn't been the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
