Netflix and the like to replace Sat/Cab?

[olds403]

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

Unlike roads internet is NOT a necessity, many people function just fine without computers and internet access. My parents have no desire to have a computer or internet access, I have no problem with that.
I should also probably qualify my statement that I don't believe in govt. subsidies of luxury items(internet service) and of things the govt. has no business being involved in.

 

[chargerrich]

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

That is actually a really good point.

Showtime was a second rate HBO "wannabe" for a long time and simply could not compete in terms of tier one movie rights. So they got smart and created some exceptional original series (even though HBO started that trend) which in the opinion of many are the best programs available regardless of service provider.

Blockbuster has been crushed by Netflix and the trend will only continue. I contend that in 24 months, streaming HD "first run" movies will be at or on the brink of "commonplace" and services like Hulu and probably some that are not even launched or designed yet will push the boundries even further, thus forcing Netflix and others to adapt or fall prey like Blockbuster has.

I am committed to Sat for 24 more months, at which time I fully expect to be able to provide similar content to what I have now (D* platinum, 5 rooms of HD) via a mix of these services and some nice technology at my home for literally 1/3 of what I pay now.

The X factor in all this is what the Sat providers might do before then. They must either provide something new that keeps them ahead of a netflix/hulu/other net solution or find a way to lower costs to be in line (read: within 15-20%) of a $50 per month price point (for the high end content they provide now).

If they do not, subs will start to drop as these tech savy early adopters leave, only to be followed in successive years by more mainstream users. Do not read this as Sat will ever go away, but D* and E* have somewhere near a combined 30-35 million households... I suspect that by 2015 that number is stagnant if robust change in terms of value/features does not dramatically change.

 

[chargerrich]

Not even a remote chance in the next decade.

While I disagree that it will take a decade, I do think my 12-24 month window is very optimistic, at least for the public at large. I am an early adopter to most things technology and do believe that when my 24 months is up with D* that I will go internet only.

That said, a better estimate in my opinion is more like 5 years. But I really look for some amazing abilities in home entertainment by 2015 :up

 

[digiblur]

We could probably do it with Netflix and OTA, but that means I'd have to get converters for a few of my TVs, an amp for the antenna to split that much, etc. I'll probably go this route when Dish kicks me off of HD Absolute as I wouldn't find it worth the money anymore.

 

[FogNoggin]

I've did this at one time. I cut the cable and lived off of streaming content and "other sources". The deal breaker is that most folks miss channel flippin'. Sometimes there's nothing better than tapping the remote and finding something good to watch.

Also, the quality ain't so hot in many cases. It won't catch on until everything is at least 720p.

 

[David_Levin]

Streaming can only pickup speed. The MPAA will love it since it'll help them keep control of the content.

It'll probably never get to blu-ray quality, but most of the idgets out there don't care.

But, bandwidth will be the limiting factor for another 5-10 years. Love your fast cable connection. Don't forget about the 250G/Month usage limit. There's going to be a huge fight as services that compete with Comcast suck more and more of thier internet bandwidth.

But, ultimately, I think satellite will be in trouble. Probably end up with a Dish Direct merger as sub numbers drop off (10 years out).

 

[televisionarchives]

Amazing how things have changed. I remember when 200 plus channels was talked about and how cool everybody thought it would be. I did as well. Now I only watch about 20 channels out of all the channels available to me. My prediction is at least 10 channels will go off the air in the next two years.

 

[slick1ru2]

Ironic that some high speed providers like mine, Comcast, have a monthly cap when the amount of HD download entertainment increases daily. Theirs is 250GB, which has been in effect for 3 years. That cap, as time goes by, will be insufficient. I have Dish, 2 PS3s with NetFlix and access to ESPN3 (formerly ESPN360.com) and we use broadband to stream HD and SD content all the time. Connection speed is getting faster all the time and I have been streaming the 720p movies on NetFlix and they look surprisingly good, recently The Red Baron and Flame and Citron, among many we have recently enjoyed. No, the selection is not there yet. I believe its at 17k total, don't know how many are HD. And while you can watch 3d HD baseball now on the PS3, football is not shown on it yet. And ESPN3 is not HD either. But it is moving that way slowly. How much are we streaming movies and sports from these sources? So much so that I am considering a business account, which has no cap, especially with the on demand college football games ESPN3 will have this fall. I was shocked to see on the 4th we had used 10% of the month's allotted amount. So, I see it growing. Blockbuster also has on demand. With HBO, EPIX and others having internet access to their subscribing using traditional providers, it might be reasonable to think eventually you may be able to do internet only subscriptions to premium content which combined with HULU may be cheaper then traditional TV providers.

 

[SpaethCo]

Blockbuster has been crushed by Netflix and the trend will only continue.

I think you're giving Netflix a little too much credit here -- they were a contributing factor, sure, but so was RedBox, Cable/Satellite company VoD/PPV, Internet (Amazon, Hulu) VoD, PS3/Xbox online movie rentals, and good old fashioned Internet piracy.

The X factor in all this is what the Sat providers might do before then. They must either provide something new that keeps them ahead of a netflix/hulu/other net solution or find a way to lower costs to be in line (read: within 15-20%) of a $50 per month price point (for the high end content they provide now).

When someone comes out with a service that:

- Has consistent video quality (no occasional buffer issues ala Youtube, Netflix)
- Carries live HD sports network feeds without the macroblocking issues that plague GameCenter Live / ESPN360 / etc.
- Allows for channel surfing
- Can scale to 18+ million subscribers

Then we'll have a starting point to the service. Google is currently the largest streaming video providers on the Internet, and current estimates place their delivery infrastructure as being able to support 2.5-3.5 million simultaneous viewers. The company that pulls this off will need to be vastly bigger than Google. Dish has 14 million subs, DirecTV has 18 million subs, and Comcast has 23.5 million subs.

Let that sink in for a minute. Google with all of its size can only support 25% of Dish subs, or 19.4% of DirecTV subs, or 14.9% of Comcast subs -- and not all at the same time. To seriously challenge even a single satellite provider the Internet-based TV provider will need to have massive infrastructure on a scale that we've never seen before.

The source of the video content isn't the only issue. The ISPs with the most bandwidth out there right now are the DOCSIS-based MSOs. (Comcast/Cox/TimeWarner/etc) DOCSIS is built to take a 6MHz channel and use it to provide a 38mbps downstream channel from the CMTS to cable modems. That 38mbps is shared by every single modem on the segment. When DOCSIS was first deployed in the late 90s there were upwards of 1200-1500 subscribers per downstream channel, today that number is down somewhere around 250 subs.

So do the math: 38,000,000 bits per second / (8 bits per byte) = 4,750,000 Bytes per second.

60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 30 days (avg month) = 2592000 seconds in the month

That means in a month that downstream channel can move 12,312,000,000,000 Bytes, or 12,312GigaBytes.

12,312GB / 250 subscribers = 49.248GB/mo per subscriber if equally divided across the month.

DOCSIS 3.0 is improving that because they are bonding 4 downstream channels, but still that only gets you to 200GB/mo per subscriber in actual download capacity. But even these numbers are flawed because it assumes uniform usage across the month 24 hours a day; with streaming video you're going have people all competing for capacity during the peak evening hours.

For mass adoption of Internet-based video to succeed these networks are going to need to be scaled up much more aggressively. That would likely drive the cost of your Internet connection to be more than your existing Internet+TV bills before you've even purchased any content online.

 

[futurecode]

I am in the process of doing this right now.

Paying $100 a month to E* while losing HD channels was not my cup of tea. SO I actually took a step back and looked what I actually watched:

Specific TV series, usually DVR'd. I have netflix, Hulu, OTAHD, Various web sreams torrents and a HTPC for that.

Sports, EPl (Arsenal), NFL (Dolphins), MLB (Yankees): Espn3, and Various web streaming options cover that, NFL is pub appointment watching for me anyway and couldn't get the Yanks on E* anyway.

Movies: HTPC catalog and Netflix for that.

I could go on, but for me (remember that , FOR ME), it became clear that I was just wasting money. It really came down shaking the habit and relearning a new way as opposed to doing what I have always done. Don't get me wrong, it's gonna be a bit before I unlearn the "channel surfing" habit, and will miss sportscenter in the morning by just turning on the tube, but I'm sure I'll adjust pretty quick.


Like I said, I'm in the progress on doing this, so last week I went for the top E* package to just dish america bronze just to ween myself off the cable/sat instead of going cold turkey. I guess we'll see how this goes, fingers crossed!

 

[Ghpr13]

I'm looking into NetFlix right now. Thinking about getting a Roku HD box. When downloading a movie from NetFlix via the Roku box or a Blu-ray player is it like streaming video on a computer, with buffering pauses, or does it download the whole movie before you can watch it like Dish On Line?
Ghpr13

 

[Big Dawg 23]

I'm looking into NetFlix right now. Thinking about getting a Roku HD box. When downloading a movie from NetFlix via the Roku box or a Blu-ray player is it like streaming video on a computer, with buffering pauses, or does it download the whole movie before you can watch it like Dish On Line?
Ghpr13

It has a buffer. The movie starts almost instantly. I have Directv and their On Demand starts the download and I can begin watching but its takes much longer than Netflix.

I have a LG Blu-Ray player streaming my Netflix to my Vizio. I have Charter 16MB so HD streams with no Hiccups. However if you have a DSL or Cable of 6MB and under I see a buffer issue kicking in from time to time.

 

[vaylon]

I use several programs on my computer to watch shows I like.
The best of which is TVersity.

I can download shows from lots of different websites like HULU or rent a flick from netflix. I can also stream movies from several services and watch them on the TV.
I can get my local evening news streamed right to my TV anytime I want.
There is even a couple of studio services out there that will randomly contact you to screen a new movie for them, before it shows up in the theaters. Of course you have to do a survey and give feedback, but its very interesting.

Currently, I get about half of everything I watch on TV from the net. But I could get everything from the net.
So if I ever had to make a choice between sat tv or broadband service? The broadband service would win hands down. Everything I can get or do with dish, I can do much more with broadband.



If I ever loose my HD absolute, I will drop my dish service and up my broadband account to the max speed.

 

[ronfelder]

Unlike roads internet is NOT a necessity, many people function just fine without computers and internet access. My parents have no desire to have a computer or internet access, I have no problem with that.
I should also probably qualify my statement that I don't believe in govt. subsidies of luxury items(internet service) and of things the govt. has no business being involved in.

What's the difference if it's a luxury or a necessity? It's still a government funded operation and big government putting it's nose where YOU don't want it. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Ghpr13]

It has a buffer. The movie starts almost instantly. I have Directv and their On Demand starts the download and I can begin watching but its takes much longer than Netflix.

I have a LG Blu-Ray player streaming my Netflix to my Vizio. I have Charter 16MB so HD streams with no Hiccups. However if you have a DSL or Cable of 6MB and under I see a buffer issue kicking in from time to time.

Big Dawg 23,
Thanks for the reply. Right now I have 10MB but I might up that to the next level which is 20MB.
Ghpr13

 

[olds403]

What's the difference if it's a luxury or a necessity? It's still a government funded operation and big government putting it's nose where YOU don't want it. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Because govt is responsible for the roads and people HAVE TO HAVE roads(it is called infrastructure, you know bridges, roads etc...), people DO NOT have to have internet, there is a difference. Government has a purpose, internet is NOT it.

 

[cjsiv]

I just cut the ties with dish last month and for my household it has been working out quite well. Granted, as many have said, this is not for the tech challenged. I have a roku box, 2-tivo's, a bluray player, a ps3, and an xbox 360 that all stream netflix. I put up an outdoor antenna which pulls in 10 hd local channels beautifully without problem. I am not a sports watcher at all so that issue is irrelevant for me. I use my mac as a media center and stream content to the tivos via pytivox. New movies I use redbox, or with the money I save, I just buy the bluray from amazon. I have more content than I can even keep up with right now. My wife misses fox news, but it's not worth $70 a month to us. Without tivo it would be much harder, but $20/mo is easier to justify than the $70 I was paying. I know more and more people that have cut the ties with cable, sat, etc and are switching to netflix and ota. I have 3 coworkers besides myself that have switched in the past few months and couldn't be happier. I just got tired of having to pay for 100 channels when I only watched 10 of them.

 

[cowboymick]

We also cut ties with DISH due to budget constraints, and the fact they couldn't give us the locals we wanted.
We have quite a few OTA channels (love the radar ones, nice to see the storms coming), ROKU-SD, Netflix account, and a Wii.
The step family gave us a Wii for Christmas. Who says having step kids doesn't pay off . We love the free Wii. Anyway, Netflix has a CD so you can watch Netflix on the Wii at no additional cost.
We are not big on watching sports either.
The highest level of video we have in the house is the SVGA that the computers are connected to. No HD here, so we are not missing anything.
So with the Wireless ISP, Netflix, ROKU, Wii, and OTA, we are getting along great.
We totally agree that it's not worth that amount of money per month to watch 10 channels with DISH.
The only thing I miss about it is the Discovery channel.
We also plan on getting into C-band FTA soon.
$8.99 for 1 DVD out, plus free streaming of some movies is a good deal!

 

[vaylon]

If everything in our country was left strictly up to companies and profits. Much of our infrastructure would not exist.

Broadband may seem like a luxury to some, but in the near future it will be as vital to the economy of this nation as our roads have been in the past century.

Without government subsidies and initiatives.
Satellite television would never have come into reality.
Rural electrification would never have happened.
Water projects such as hoover dam or Mississippi river flood control projects would never have happened.
Most rural roads would still be made of dirt.
If it wasn't for the gov, you would only have one choice in phone service (ATT) and I doubt cell phones would have ever have come into existence.
If it wasn't for the gov, rural hospitals and clinics would never have come into being. For that matter you could completely forget about rural anything. No one would want to live in areas with limited services of everything.
Without federal money, many states like the south and mid western areas would be pretty unpopulated.
And as many states are finding out now, without the federal subsidies their budgets are forcing them to raise taxes on their citizens to make up the diff.

Broadband service may seem like a luxury to some, but very soon it will be the needed norm in almost every area of the country.
Just like when cars first came out. There were some who refused to by a horseless carriage because they didn't need to get there that fast and they had seen the horror stories of those things exploding with all that gasoline in them. Besides who wants to have their taxes raised to pay for all those fancy roads them silly contraptions have to drive on. A good horse can go over anything.
Fundamentalist views of anything are short sided and most of the time ,self destructive. Just look at world history.
The United states got to where it is because we allowed visionaries the chances to explore their ideas and make them into realities.
Corporations only have one goal, make a profit.
Just study corporate history prior to the middle of the last century and you can see a perfect example of what a fundamentalist approach to business and government creates.

 

[MikeD-C05]

If everything in our country was left strictly up to companies and profits. Much of our infrastructure would not exist.

Broadband may seem like a luxury to some, but in the near future it will be as vital to the economy of this nation as our roads have been in the past century.

Without government subsidies and initiatives.
Satellite television would never have come into reality.
Rural electrification would never have happened.
Water projects such as hoover dam or Mississippi river flood control projects would never have happened.
Most rural roads would still be made of dirt.
If it wasn't for the gov, you would only have one choice in phone service (ATT) and I doubt cell phones would have ever have come into existence.
If it wasn't for the gov, rural hospitals and clinics would never have come into being. For that matter you could completely forget about rural anything. No one would want to live in areas with limited services of everything.
Without federal money, many states like the south and mid western areas would be pretty unpopulated.
And as many states are finding out now, without the federal subsidies their budgets are forcing them to raise taxes on their citizens to make up the diff.

Broadband service may seem like a luxury to some, but very soon it will be the needed norm in almost every area of the country.
Just like when cars first came out. There were some who refused to by a horseless carriage because they didn't need to get there that fast and they had seen the horror stories of those things exploding with all that gasoline in them. Besides who wants to have their taxes raised to pay for all those fancy roads them silly contraptions have to drive on. A good horse can go over anything.
Fundamentalist views of anything are short sided and most of the time ,self destructive. Just look at world history.
The United states got to where it is because we allowed visionaries the chances to explore their ideas and make them into realities.
Corporations only have one goal, make a profit.
Just study corporate history prior to the middle of the last century and you can see a perfect example of what a fundamentalist approach to business and government creates.

100 % agree. Great post. :up:up:up