Analyst firm Needham and Company recently polled 300 people to find out what TV channels they absolutely could not live without. You may be surprised by the results!
Read Column
Read Column
HDTV Expert - Can You Cut the Cord and Still Find Happiness in TV Land?
Read-only archive
Wait until the FCC’s Net neutrality proposal kicks in and then we will see how many streaming cut-cord fanatics would be around using so freely their Internet connection for video streaming using heavy bandwidth, rather than the browsing, email, etc they wanted the line for originally:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120706533.html?wpisrc=nl_pmtech
People make false cost comparisons now with classic cable and satellite because most are not actually paying for the higher demand they impose on their ISP line. When the Internet lines will be charged according to use, the tables will turn around.
Arguably, that is fair to an ISP provider that may be struggling to keep up with a public that massively want to stream/download a relatively high amount content, a content they previously obtained from the classic providers, and even pre-recorded media (without using anyone's bandwidth).
This is not about the Net’s neutrality protection for blocking or slowing down competitors, is about that someone has to pay for actual usage when the demand skyrockets and the infrastructure can not grow that fast with normal investment.
Rodolfo La Maestra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120706533.html?wpisrc=nl_pmtech
People make false cost comparisons now with classic cable and satellite because most are not actually paying for the higher demand they impose on their ISP line. When the Internet lines will be charged according to use, the tables will turn around.
Arguably, that is fair to an ISP provider that may be struggling to keep up with a public that massively want to stream/download a relatively high amount content, a content they previously obtained from the classic providers, and even pre-recorded media (without using anyone's bandwidth).
This is not about the Net’s neutrality protection for blocking or slowing down competitors, is about that someone has to pay for actual usage when the demand skyrockets and the infrastructure can not grow that fast with normal investment.
Rodolfo La Maestra
As Net Neutrality was originally proposed it would have prevented ISPs from discriminating against content such as streaming video, streaming video from a competitor, or P2P networking.
What the FCC is proposing is quite different and according to an interview I watched of the FCC Chairman, they are looking at an implementation of "The Fairness Doctrine" and calling it Net Neutrality. Originally Net Neutrality had nothing to do with the "Fairness Doctrine". They are also looking at controlling content on TV as well as the Internet. IOW equal time for the opposition according to what he was saying. Then there is the controversial tiered access based on how much bandwidth you use.
I've mentioned this before but even though I have a 15 Mbs hookup, streaming video has not done well here. I'd have to download it and watch later, which may or may not be an option. It wasn't on several streaming sites. Most of the time U-tube is a lost cause so you can imagine what trying to watch a movie is like. OTOH I will have to admit that it appears to be improving although not good enough to "cut the cord" which is a term I dislike. Be it Internet or satellite it's just one cord replacing another. Here it's a MASS of cords<:-))
What would I have to have streaming before I'd drop cable? Not a thing. I'd not miss any of the major networks and I'd probably keep satellite anyway. I've not watched one show on the networks in years. OTOH we do watch the nightly weather on the local affiliates as it's a slightly different outlook than the Weather Channel. The Weather Channel used to be on most of the time until they started adding all the other "stuff" and now we might watch 15 or 20 minutes a day. Weather is one thing I can get on the computer including real time RADAR by subscription. I'm far more interested in what the weather is doing, or going to do than I am in their additional programming and think there should be a law against those streamers across the bottom of the screen or adds over a program.
What the FCC is proposing is quite different and according to an interview I watched of the FCC Chairman, they are looking at an implementation of "The Fairness Doctrine" and calling it Net Neutrality. Originally Net Neutrality had nothing to do with the "Fairness Doctrine". They are also looking at controlling content on TV as well as the Internet. IOW equal time for the opposition according to what he was saying. Then there is the controversial tiered access based on how much bandwidth you use.
I've mentioned this before but even though I have a 15 Mbs hookup, streaming video has not done well here. I'd have to download it and watch later, which may or may not be an option. It wasn't on several streaming sites. Most of the time U-tube is a lost cause so you can imagine what trying to watch a movie is like. OTOH I will have to admit that it appears to be improving although not good enough to "cut the cord" which is a term I dislike. Be it Internet or satellite it's just one cord replacing another. Here it's a MASS of cords<:-))
What would I have to have streaming before I'd drop cable? Not a thing. I'd not miss any of the major networks and I'd probably keep satellite anyway. I've not watched one show on the networks in years. OTOH we do watch the nightly weather on the local affiliates as it's a slightly different outlook than the Weather Channel. The Weather Channel used to be on most of the time until they started adding all the other "stuff" and now we might watch 15 or 20 minutes a day. Weather is one thing I can get on the computer including real time RADAR by subscription. I'm far more interested in what the weather is doing, or going to do than I am in their additional programming and think there should be a law against those streamers across the bottom of the screen or adds over a program.
I cut the cord from cable TV over 20 years ago and I don't have satellite or fiber optic TV service either; just a regular TV antenna. The switch to digital was a major improvement in the quality of the image. In reality, we may WANT the extra channels, but we really don't NEED the extra channels.
I do have to admire the people in the marketing departments of cable and satellite companies; they have done a great job of making people think that HAVE To HAVE these services. I love it when they come by my house with the pitch, "We can save you money..." Really, it's hard to beat free.
Bob Diaz
I do have to admire the people in the marketing departments of cable and satellite companies; they have done a great job of making people think that HAVE To HAVE these services. I love it when they come by my house with the pitch, "We can save you money..." Really, it's hard to beat free.
Bob Diaz
Roger,
Net Neutrality is a term that has been used for years and intended to provide fairness to Internet access by the public. Now, after so many failed efforts in finding a common ground with the industry, the how-to details are being drafted beyond the original idea of not blocking/slowing content, and, as with ANY proposal from ANY side, sharp shooters are expected to aim to the part/s they click on.
The pay-as-you-use IS actually “a part” of Net neutrality; it was an obvious need to be neutral with all involved, users and provider.
Regardless if you like the other details of the proposal or not, someone has to pay for overuse of a limited infrastructure, so it can gradually grow and be better for all, rather than expecting the ISP to foot all the investment without support from users that want the cake and eat it too while they cut cords.
Your 15 Mbps line should in theory provide sufficient bandwidth for most of the streaming services out there; you may want to do a speedtest to confirm. Although I have a 100Mbps FTTP fiber I also test hardware and services (such as Roku, Netflix HD, Oppo 93 3D blu-ray-player, etc) thru a 802.11 wireless modem that is ten times slower to simulate other speeds, and the signal has been flawless so far.
Pay-as-you-use should in theory also affect your video download activity, not because of Mbps streaming speed, but by monthly GB caps, which also affects infrastructure overuse.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Net Neutrality is a term that has been used for years and intended to provide fairness to Internet access by the public. Now, after so many failed efforts in finding a common ground with the industry, the how-to details are being drafted beyond the original idea of not blocking/slowing content, and, as with ANY proposal from ANY side, sharp shooters are expected to aim to the part/s they click on.
The pay-as-you-use IS actually “a part” of Net neutrality; it was an obvious need to be neutral with all involved, users and provider.
Regardless if you like the other details of the proposal or not, someone has to pay for overuse of a limited infrastructure, so it can gradually grow and be better for all, rather than expecting the ISP to foot all the investment without support from users that want the cake and eat it too while they cut cords.
Your 15 Mbps line should in theory provide sufficient bandwidth for most of the streaming services out there; you may want to do a speedtest to confirm. Although I have a 100Mbps FTTP fiber I also test hardware and services (such as Roku, Netflix HD, Oppo 93 3D blu-ray-player, etc) thru a 802.11 wireless modem that is ten times slower to simulate other speeds, and the signal has been flawless so far.
Pay-as-you-use should in theory also affect your video download activity, not because of Mbps streaming speed, but by monthly GB caps, which also affects infrastructure overuse.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
We ditched the cable a few years ago and I must admit that I miss the History Channel. Now when there's nothing on, we watch recorded broadcasts. In fact, we watch very little appointment TV. We looked and found great shows on broadcast TV, all in HD. And with the money we don't spend on cable, we can get as many movies from Redbox as we want. Plus we used to buy one or two series that we really like on DVD. But as they got canceled, we didn't replace them, so that's gone away.
I use Beyond TV to record in HD on our computer. That software (or I could use Windows Media Center) requires no subscription. So we pay no cable bill, no equipment rental, no monthly fees for anything. We pay a dollar to rent movies when we want and that is all.
I use Beyond TV to record in HD on our computer. That software (or I could use Windows Media Center) requires no subscription. So we pay no cable bill, no equipment rental, no monthly fees for anything. We pay a dollar to rent movies when we want and that is all.
The problem was ISPs selling unlimited connect time IOW if they sell unlimited they should be obligated to provide it. That means 24 X 7. Otherwise it would be false advertising. One ISP told me, we know that but every one does it and if they didn't they'd lose business to those who did. On that model there is no such thing as a bandwidth hog.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with the tiered system. I called it controversial which it is.
My point though is what they are selling now goes far beyond what was originally asked for and billed as Net Neutrality and steps into government control of program content and apparently deciding who can say what. Control of the media is a very dangerous and slippery slope.
But the main problem which is part of a number of dangerous precedents is the FCC is doing is ignoring Congress who is *supposed* to have the authority over the FCC. Congress said no because of the contents that had been added while the FCC says, "We are going to do it anyway"
I didn't say there was anything wrong with the tiered system. I called it controversial which it is.
My point though is what they are selling now goes far beyond what was originally asked for and billed as Net Neutrality and steps into government control of program content and apparently deciding who can say what. Control of the media is a very dangerous and slippery slope.
But the main problem which is part of a number of dangerous precedents is the FCC is doing is ignoring Congress who is *supposed* to have the authority over the FCC. Congress said no because of the contents that had been added while the FCC says, "We are going to do it anyway"
Roger,
Where on the FCC proposal is stated that the government will control content?
Wasn't the intent to avoid that the service provider does exactly that (no blocking, no downspeed, etc).
Comcast a couple of years ago was on the news for applying a monthly cap on downloads to subscribers while their contract claimed unlimited service, but that was marketing at a time when video over the Internet was growing, before the full blown Netflix, Hulu, etc.
Let me do this analogy:
Assume I build a sprinkler system on my house and I am nice enough to offer my neighbors additional water connections for sprinkler zones reaching their adjacent yards with the condition "we turn the sprinkler head zones at different times, and not add extra zones".
But after a while my neighbors decide to water at the same time I water my lawn and for prolonged periods way beyond the original estimate. My zones cannot even have pressure to raise the sprinkler heads up, neither theirs.
They can always turn to free rainfall (over the air broadcast), or join a water supply that was designed for constant water for everyone (multicast cable or satellite), but they prefer to continue because their overuse is relatively free.
They always paid me for their agreed basic sprinkler water consumption (not for their current overuse).
Do I have the right to establish limits on their water use to make the existing infrastructure work for all?
If they do not want to limit their use, do I have the right to charge them extra for the additional water they use so I can pay the overall water bill, and have funds to eventually upgrade my system to make it capable of running all sprinkler zones together?
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Where on the FCC proposal is stated that the government will control content?
Wasn't the intent to avoid that the service provider does exactly that (no blocking, no downspeed, etc).
Comcast a couple of years ago was on the news for applying a monthly cap on downloads to subscribers while their contract claimed unlimited service, but that was marketing at a time when video over the Internet was growing, before the full blown Netflix, Hulu, etc.
Let me do this analogy:
Assume I build a sprinkler system on my house and I am nice enough to offer my neighbors additional water connections for sprinkler zones reaching their adjacent yards with the condition "we turn the sprinkler head zones at different times, and not add extra zones".
But after a while my neighbors decide to water at the same time I water my lawn and for prolonged periods way beyond the original estimate. My zones cannot even have pressure to raise the sprinkler heads up, neither theirs.
They can always turn to free rainfall (over the air broadcast), or join a water supply that was designed for constant water for everyone (multicast cable or satellite), but they prefer to continue because their overuse is relatively free.
They always paid me for their agreed basic sprinkler water consumption (not for their current overuse).
Do I have the right to establish limits on their water use to make the existing infrastructure work for all?
If they do not want to limit their use, do I have the right to charge them extra for the additional water they use so I can pay the overall water bill, and have funds to eventually upgrade my system to make it capable of running all sprinkler zones together?
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
First, there was nothing in the proposal. I was referring to the interview with the FCC Chair and what he was proposing they may do on their own.`
So, we are still in the dark as to what the FCC is going to go ahead and do. IOW we really don't know how they will define or enforce Net Neutrality so we don't know how it will impact "cutting the cord"
The gist of it, one side says it will be great, while the other is saying that it may stratify the Net with the rich having the money to pay for high bandwidth and the poor getting stuck with limited bandwidth.
The original question of cutting the cord and it's effects on cable are really unknown. If your Internet provider is the same as your cable company AND they can provide comparable service at a comparable price (IE stay competitive) There would be little reason for cutting the cord. In our case my wife and I prefer satellite even though we do use cable for the Internet.
Going back to "unlimited" bandwidth. Unlike your sprinkler they had advertising and contracts for unlimited when they started cutting back. In the case of a contract you are obligated to provide what you said you would whether it has become physically impossible or not. Hence the new contracts have the weasel words, "They reserve the right to change the contract conditions at any time", So although not popular they can without advance notice (unless prohibited from doing so by state or local laws)
In essence Charter (which I use) has a tiered system although slightly different. They have a series of connect speeds with a low...IIRC of around 128, or 256K up to an enhanced 15 or 16 Mbs. No, I don't know what they mean by enhanced. The user (so far) can run what ever bandwidth they signed up for 24 X 7. Of course the 128K is far less expensive than the 15 Mbs. Their may be other contracts with which I am not familiar.
My take? The government rarely adds any controls/regulation without it costing, us the consumers more money.
So, we are still in the dark as to what the FCC is going to go ahead and do. IOW we really don't know how they will define or enforce Net Neutrality so we don't know how it will impact "cutting the cord"
The gist of it, one side says it will be great, while the other is saying that it may stratify the Net with the rich having the money to pay for high bandwidth and the poor getting stuck with limited bandwidth.
The original question of cutting the cord and it's effects on cable are really unknown. If your Internet provider is the same as your cable company AND they can provide comparable service at a comparable price (IE stay competitive) There would be little reason for cutting the cord. In our case my wife and I prefer satellite even though we do use cable for the Internet.
Going back to "unlimited" bandwidth. Unlike your sprinkler they had advertising and contracts for unlimited when they started cutting back. In the case of a contract you are obligated to provide what you said you would whether it has become physically impossible or not. Hence the new contracts have the weasel words, "They reserve the right to change the contract conditions at any time", So although not popular they can without advance notice (unless prohibited from doing so by state or local laws)
In essence Charter (which I use) has a tiered system although slightly different. They have a series of connect speeds with a low...IIRC of around 128, or 256K up to an enhanced 15 or 16 Mbs. No, I don't know what they mean by enhanced. The user (so far) can run what ever bandwidth they signed up for 24 X 7. Of course the 128K is far less expensive than the 15 Mbs. Their may be other contracts with which I am not familiar.
My take? The government rarely adds any controls/regulation without it costing, us the consumers more money.
It seems the Net Neutrality draft may be available for you to give the FCC your comments shortly:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/460900-Baker_to_FCC_Publish_Net_Neutrality_Draft_ASAP.php
However, it is not clear what exactly you want:
You object a cable company’s freedom to operate as it pleases, but also dislike a government body protecting consumers with regulations to control exactly that because they are using your tax dollars.
What is your especific solution?
Rodolfo La Maestra
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/460900-Baker_to_FCC_Publish_Net_Neutrality_Draft_ASAP.php
However, it is not clear what exactly you want:
You object a cable company’s freedom to operate as it pleases, but also dislike a government body protecting consumers with regulations to control exactly that because they are using your tax dollars.
What is your especific solution?
Rodolfo La Maestra
I didn't want anything.
I was merely attempting to inform about what I had read and had heard the FCC chairman say about what they wanted to do.
My only complaint was the FCC doing what congress had essentially directed them not to do by their vote and with which at least one commissioner strongly agrees.
The FCC proposal has not yet been made public that I can find. When and if it is the comment period will be unduly short. The comment has been made that they have heard enough from the public they don't need to go through the public comment period, or at least it can be *very* short, thus losing much transparency.
I did comment that I've been on a tiered system for some time, actually some years with the only bandwidth being that imposed by the speed. I pay a given amount for the Internet and can have basic cable for no additional cost.
What do I think the FCC will do? They will stick along the lines of what they have ruled in the past; that ISPs may not block based on content, or source (such as P2P) and likely will rule against blocking competing content such as the current block of NetFlix. I believe this "Net Neutrality" will be part of a larger package. The chairman has indicated a desire to regulate content which they do now on broadcast TV, but more closely. The chairman remarked that they want TV stations and networks to "justify" their existence. Currently they only have to act on input from viewers and may follow their own political views and ethics as long as it conforms to The Fairness Doctrine".
So we have to throw OTA TV into the mix as well. Although I have one whale of an antenna system and can watch digital stations (I receive around 20) out to around a 100 miles (give or take) there is little I find of interest on OTA TV or major networks. I can learn more about what is going on here by watching the BBC news than I can on ABC, CBS, and NBC. Over here, news has turned into entertainment rather than actual news reporting. What I do see likely is regulations that will raise the cost of both TV and the Internet to the providers and consumers and quite likely a reduction in the variety of programming. For some areas and some viewers OTA TV may be a key and others it may not even be a consideration.
Not knowing what the FCC is going to do means we don't yet know how "cutting the cord" is likely to affect both the Internet and the cable companies.
Generally the Internet is available most places having cable, whether it is on the cable or available by some other means. Whether the cable company uses coax or fiber optic is relatively unimportant. For streaming video you either pay the cable company or ISP. I think where the cable company is both TV and and ISP this is a moot point even if they provide them as separate services. That being the case the only real difference will depend on the business model of the particular cable company. IOW how do you cut the cable when it is both the source for TV and Internet? Where the market is highly competitive it *might* mean a cable company not supplying the Internet would not have the means to compete and remain economically viable.
OTA TV is generally of higher definition than either cable or satellite but is badly lacking in content. Everything has to be reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Movies get edited to the point of losing the plot, or major portions thereof which to me has rendered it close to useless except for local news and weather.
I was merely attempting to inform about what I had read and had heard the FCC chairman say about what they wanted to do.
My only complaint was the FCC doing what congress had essentially directed them not to do by their vote and with which at least one commissioner strongly agrees.
The FCC proposal has not yet been made public that I can find. When and if it is the comment period will be unduly short. The comment has been made that they have heard enough from the public they don't need to go through the public comment period, or at least it can be *very* short, thus losing much transparency.
I did comment that I've been on a tiered system for some time, actually some years with the only bandwidth being that imposed by the speed. I pay a given amount for the Internet and can have basic cable for no additional cost.
What do I think the FCC will do? They will stick along the lines of what they have ruled in the past; that ISPs may not block based on content, or source (such as P2P) and likely will rule against blocking competing content such as the current block of NetFlix. I believe this "Net Neutrality" will be part of a larger package. The chairman has indicated a desire to regulate content which they do now on broadcast TV, but more closely. The chairman remarked that they want TV stations and networks to "justify" their existence. Currently they only have to act on input from viewers and may follow their own political views and ethics as long as it conforms to The Fairness Doctrine".
So we have to throw OTA TV into the mix as well. Although I have one whale of an antenna system and can watch digital stations (I receive around 20) out to around a 100 miles (give or take) there is little I find of interest on OTA TV or major networks. I can learn more about what is going on here by watching the BBC news than I can on ABC, CBS, and NBC. Over here, news has turned into entertainment rather than actual news reporting. What I do see likely is regulations that will raise the cost of both TV and the Internet to the providers and consumers and quite likely a reduction in the variety of programming. For some areas and some viewers OTA TV may be a key and others it may not even be a consideration.
Not knowing what the FCC is going to do means we don't yet know how "cutting the cord" is likely to affect both the Internet and the cable companies.
Generally the Internet is available most places having cable, whether it is on the cable or available by some other means. Whether the cable company uses coax or fiber optic is relatively unimportant. For streaming video you either pay the cable company or ISP. I think where the cable company is both TV and and ISP this is a moot point even if they provide them as separate services. That being the case the only real difference will depend on the business model of the particular cable company. IOW how do you cut the cable when it is both the source for TV and Internet? Where the market is highly competitive it *might* mean a cable company not supplying the Internet would not have the means to compete and remain economically viable.
OTA TV is generally of higher definition than either cable or satellite but is badly lacking in content. Everything has to be reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Movies get edited to the point of losing the plot, or major portions thereof which to me has rendered it close to useless except for local news and weather.
We've been debating the pros, cons, and unknowns about cutting the cord. However we neglected one important aspect which has been the difference in cost to the providers of streaming video. The balance of power and low cost streaming video from the internet may change according to a NY Times article about an ever increasing rift between the entertainment industry and NetFlix.
As contracts come up for renewal, NetFlix is likely to lose the reported tremendous cost advantage it has over cable and even rentals. They would still have the advantage of convenience of Video on Demand.
If, or rather when their costs go up *substantially*, "cutting the cord" could become far less attractive and even put the cable companies "back into the game" on a more equal footing.
I would expect this change in the balance of power to filter down to other content providers as well eventually putting the cost of TV programs and movies to become on par with cable and satellite. It certainly would be a game changer.
As contracts come up for renewal, NetFlix is likely to lose the reported tremendous cost advantage it has over cable and even rentals. They would still have the advantage of convenience of Video on Demand.
If, or rather when their costs go up *substantially*, "cutting the cord" could become far less attractive and even put the cable companies "back into the game" on a more equal footing.
I would expect this change in the balance of power to filter down to other content providers as well eventually putting the cost of TV programs and movies to become on par with cable and satellite. It certainly would be a game changer.
Roger,
Actually you may have neglected it; I contributed that particular analysis on my very first post, as follows:
“People make false cost comparisons now with classic cable and satellite because most are not actually paying for the higher demand they impose on their ISP line. When the Internet lines will be charged according to use, the tables will turn around.”
This is my last post.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Actually you may have neglected it; I contributed that particular analysis on my very first post, as follows:
“People make false cost comparisons now with classic cable and satellite because most are not actually paying for the higher demand they impose on their ISP line. When the Internet lines will be charged according to use, the tables will turn around.”
This is my last post.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
The NY Times article was not referring to a tired system, but rather the very low prices that providers of content pay and particularly the very favorable contracts that net flicks has at the moment. While NetFlicks pays in the 50 million range the cable and satellite companies are paying IIRC in the hundreds of millions for the same content. The assumption made was that NetFlick's cost will become comparable to that of the cable and satellite companies. At least that is what the studios will be going after.
As I said before, I'm already on a tiered system based on speed but they are referring to the actual cost of the *content* which will be going up substantially which is quite different than the either a speed or bandwidth cap.
As I said before, I'm already on a tiered system based on speed but they are referring to the actual cost of the *content* which will be going up substantially which is quite different than the either a speed or bandwidth cap.