Netflix and the like to replace Sat/Cab?

[chargerrich]

Might be taboo to say and we are NOT there yet, but is anyone else thinking that in the next 12-24 months it might be a better value and maybe even a better experience to dump any sat or cable provider and instead rely solely on the combination of existing and future free/low cost media services?

Netflix - All movies and non current TV series' + streaming to multi rooms
Hulu - Current run TV series
Hulu plus coming to PSN and inevitably XBL

Probably more in the works we will see in the coming months. All these means that we are close to a point in time where spending $100+ month for HDTV entertainment will seem ludicrous

This alone is not enough for most of us that still need sports and such, but I have to believe that E* and D* as well as cable providers need to adapt to this coming media storm.

 

[navychop]

The Internet infrastructure cannot support this on a widespread basis yet. Not for many years.

And I think we're kidding ourselves of we think costs will go down.

 

[StonesCat]

As far as movies go, we're a long ways from Netflix having the library of HD that you can get thru various channels that feature older films. For the person who just watches any new release, yeah, go with Netflix. Classics like The African Queen just got a regular DVD release for the first time this year.

 

[chargerrich]

The internet is not about to be government controlled anytime soon. Too many capitalist interests on something that is inherently hard to "own". Yes I am aware of ARPAnet and how the internet came to be, but the proverbial "cat is out of the bag" and the government has little to no chance to reel it in.

I CAN see there eventually being lots of subsidizing and taxing to provide a minimum level of service in urban areas and other such measures that some would definitely (with good reason) see as a government control.

All that said, pipe will continue to grow and cost will continue to drop. If I had told most of you 15 years ago that a significant percent of homes in America would have the AT LEAST five times the speed of a T1 for $50 a month you would have thought me crazy.

1994 T1 Average Price - $227 per month (thats 1.544mpbs people)

In 1994 a T3 (44mpbs) cost upwards of $2,500 per month. Today you can buy an OC3 which is 155mpbs for the same price so prevailing logic says that we will increase our bandwidth per dollar spent by 300-500% in the next decade and thats just the bandwidth. We have not talked about the increase in services that are expected.

Those of us old enough to remember entire companies running on a single T1 or ISDN line know that capitalism and demand will propel us forward.

 

[olds403]

There are very few people that have NO internet access. While dial up is certainly not glamorous it IS access. There are satellite solutions for those out in the sticks, I do not feel that broadband should be made available at the cost of freedom or the free market. I also believe that it is a service that should be paid for, I don't believe in free internet access for low income people as I have heard some people advocate. Libraries provide free access, if you can't afford it go to the library. I don't believe in government subsidies.

 

[allargon]

Next thing you know broadband internet will be a basic human right and no longer a service just like healthcare.

In Norway, it already is.

Netflix won't replace cable for a long, long time.

 

[Mr Tony]

removed the political stuff

take that to sonic babble folks

 

[eurosport]

...While dial up is certainly not glamorous it IS access...

...And the only access here. I don't see anything changing for several years. Satellite internet costs too much, with too many usage restrictions, so it's not an option.

 

[televisionarchives]

I wonder how Blockbuster rentals and Netflix has effected the Premium Movie Channels. If anything would be hurt by Neflix I would think it would be HBO etc.

 

[Bobby]

The premium movie channels are slowly getting away from movies and going to very excellent original programming....

 

[televisionarchives]

The premium movie channels are slowly getting away from movies and going to very excellent original programming....

So the Premium Movie channels are doing good? HBO etc?

 

[ronfelder]

There are very few people that have NO internet access. While dial up is certainly not glamorous it IS access. There are satellite solutions for those out in the sticks, I do not feel that broadband should be made available at the cost of freedom or the free market. I also believe that it is a service that should be paid for, I don't believe in free internet access for low income people as I have heard some people advocate. Libraries provide free access, if you can't afford it go to the library. I don't believe in government subsidies.

No government subsidies? You mean like when the feds pay for the roads and road repair in your community? I guess since you feel the gov should be out of helping eople you shoudn't have access to those roads or if nothing else pay a toll forevery road you travel on.

remember when you retire to make sure you don't take an ssi or medicare when you're of age.

Ron

 

[DishSubLA]

It may take up to 5 years before we see this be an equal threat, but it is a threat today, however small a threat. As far as the government ultimately regulating ISP's: it is almost a certainty as far more numerous major corporations want equal access and net neutrality than the handful of ISP's who want government hands off. As big as the ISP'a are, major conglomerates, just about every other huge conglomerate is lined up against them. And we all know that the government tows the line for corporate interests. The ISP's will still make a boat load of $$ (perhaps not the obscene whale killings they would like), but they will not be able to hamper competition like Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, nor any of cable's or FiOS or IP competition by restricting download bandwidth because someone downloads a lot of Netflix instead of buying cable PPV or VOD. Even satellite DirecTV and Dish are agaonst the ISP's. That is the goal of the government and just about EVERY other corporation out there.

However, one's ISP bill can't be too expensive or none of the competition will have a chance--and that is where the FCC comes in. Will they allow tiers of service? If so, at what price, etc? We shall see. This administration has put net neutrality and national broadband near the top of the list of things to do. There really is no reason to scream the sky falling.

 

[Bob Haller]

Sky falling would be a good thing!

My FAVORITE CHANNEL IS NATIONAL GEO,!!!

I would happily pat them 5 bucks a month for unlimited access to all their shows....

meanwhile ESPN can get ZERO.

Internet programming distribution will bring debundling

 

[Bobby]

So the Premium Movie channels are doing good? HBO etc?

If you look at HBOs emmy nominations and especially the wins, I'd say hell yes....

 

[multnomah]

Before making any plans to drop either D* or E* for the Internet, I first want to see two things:

1) I want to see original programming that can equal what we get on the specialty sat and cable channels in both quality and quantity. So far there is very little. I'm not impressed with reruns of old shows from ABC and CBS.

2) I want to see HD programming with PQ that is no worse than what E* and D* offer. Netflix HD, which I watch occasionally, just doesn't have enough bandwidth (3.5 Mbps for HD, 2.5 Mbps for SD, last time I checked). I read somewhere that Netflix engineers wanted 5.5 Mbps but were overruled by the Marketing department.

On the other hand, as someone once said, "build it and they will come." It's not an impossible dream, and someone could build it in the near future.

 

[iliketj]

It's all about demographics. Only one percent of dish customers that I have visited (I'm a tech) are in the late 20's and younger. Most of those people live in apartments so there are LOS issues right away if they even wanted dish. Most in this category don't. They don't want a 2 year contract, they get cable internet so they usually get bundle service if they have a pay tv provider. Or they do the hulu/netflix/bit torrent stuff.

The other 99 percent either have a family or are old folks. Old folks will never ever do hulu/bit torrent, hell I'm still in awe when they know how to use email. Your average family won't do it because they don't have the tech know how, it's extremely inconvenient for them to do it if they do know how.

So basically the people who are doing the whole hulu/internet streaming thing never had dish to begin with so I don't think the sat companies will lose too much customer base.

However, if a company came out with a platform with built in wifi and a built in ota and had user family friendly software, that could give the sat cos a run for their money. It would let customers view live tv (locals, news, sports, etc) and you get all your shows from hulu etc without having to set up your laptop or computer to your tv.

of course this could all change with the fcc putting caps and bandwith. I don't think the cable companies could have ever forseen this much data usage when they put out their infustructure. They just did a one gig upgrade from the old 750mhz system a few years back in my area and it costs millions and it was supposed to sustian them a least 10 years and it's already being outdated.

 

[sbsi]

it takes way way way too long for movies getting on HBO, Starz, Showtime.

Showtime takes close to a year while HBO/CINEMAX and STARZ take 6-8 months, the fastest.

netflix and dvd is not taking away the business when more people are getting digital channels instead.

 

[SpaethCo]

Internet programming distribution will bring debundling

I don't see how -- it's the same companies producing the content we're watching no matter how it gets delivered.

How content gets delivered comes down to a matter of cost. Ultimately delivering TV channels via the Internet will be more expensive than traditional methods because unicast delivery is expensive in comparison.

Look at it this way: broadcast video is already being digitally delivered to your house multiple times. It's in the cable line that runs up to your house, it's in the various satellite feeds you can subscribe to, it's in the OTA broadcasts from your local network stations. The shows are produced on a fixed schedule -- you can't watch new shows any faster than the networks put them on the air. With Internet video everybody gets a unique feed, so if you need a server to push video to 100 people, then you need 10 servers to push video to 1000 people, 100 servers to 10,000 people, etc etc. The business case erodes pretty quickly when you have to grow the infrastructure linearly with subscriber count only to deliver the same content that other systems are delivering today for cheaper.

The Internet works for things like NetFlix because in some cases it's cheaper to pay for the bandwidth to transmit a movie than it is to ship out a disc. We're probably there for DVD-grade content right now, but it's still cheaper to ship a Blu-ray disc in the mail than it is to deliver the same quality of video over the Internet by the time you factor in the data centers, storage, servers, and bandwidth that would be required to make it happen at any kind of worthwhile scale.

 

[charper1]

Might be taboo to say and we are NOT there yet, but is anyone else thinking that in the next 12-24 months it might be a better value and maybe even a better experience to dump any sat or cable provider and instead rely solely on the combination of existing and future free/low cost media services?

Netflix - All movies and non current TV series' + streaming to multi rooms
Hulu - Current run TV series
Hulu plus coming to PSN and inevitably XBL

Probably more in the works we will see in the coming months. All these means that we are close to a point in time where spending $100+ month for HDTV entertainment will seem ludicrous

This alone is not enough for most of us that still need sports and such, but I have to believe that E* and D* as well as cable providers need to adapt to this coming media storm.

Not even a remote chance in the next decade. For those people that can do it; it would be on a VERY limited basis and a VERY limited and narrowly specific viewing habit / selections and low amount of time used. AND maybe it could support a single person or no more than a second person in the same home but no more than that. If more and more ISP's continue to place monthly usage caps and throttle speeds (at current costs) this will be even more constrained. Thus it would seem in order to get real unlimited use or to stay unlimited they (the ISPs) will likely jack monthly connectivity usage rates up to the point where having the cable or SAT would still be a better option of price vs selection and reliability, etc and simply maintain a regular ISP package.

This doesn't even account for those that can't get real or reliable high-speed service.