Why does cable still exist?

[ssetta]

Let's go back to the late 1970s/early 1980s. It was a time that cable TV was becoming available in many parts of the country. So the question is: why did people start getting it? Partially because they wanted more channels, but also to improve reception in areas where there was little to none. But most of the cable channels did not have very good quality programming, though people got them anyway. And by the mid-late 1980s, a good percent of U.S. households had cable where it was available, which was most of the US.

And then in the early 2000s, came digital cable, which was more channels added to the already existing lineup, costing more money. People got it, just because they wanted more channels.

But now, most people are cutting the cord and ditching cable because just about everything that's on cable is available on streaming. But my question is: if nobody uses something anymore, then why does it still exist?

I checked to see what's on some of the once-most popular cable channels, such as MTV and Nickelodeon. They pretty much just have all-day marathons of a single series, sometimes not even that popular. I've also heard talk about some of the MTV specialty channels being shut down, such as MTV Classic, which I still tune into occasionally.

But the question is: what are the alternatives? Obviously, streaming. And I've even heard that the antenna is sort of making a comeback. But what about in parts of the country where there's little to no reception, such as Cape Cod, MA? How would they receive local channels if not on cable?

The other question is: Are there any advantages of still having cable? If so, what are they?

 

[gr8oldies]

When cable came in to my hometown, the antennas went away. We could only get network affiliates from Fort Wayne, Dayton and Lima, one PBS and WTTV, Indianapolis and WXIX, Cincinnati as independents.

The advantage of cable now? You don't have to put up an antenna for your locals and you can get a package of programming. Streaming has delays before you can see some programming (my life watches Pioneer Woman and streaming is a season behind) and sports can be iffy, especially if you aren't a devoted fan but like the occasional game. NASCAR is also generally unavailable by streaming

 

[fybush]

It's simple to use, especially for an older demographic that isn't as quick to adapt to be technology. One channel lineup, one remote, and you probably know the six or eight channels you usually watch and just punch in those numbers.

It's why my mom still has cable, for now.

 

[TheBigA]

if nobody uses something anymore, then why does it still exist?

Because a lot of people still use it. Put it on the list with landline phones. Why do they still exist? I don't have one. But millions do.

Put it on the list with broadcast radio. If nobody listens to broadcast radio, why does it still exist?

I just became a cord cutter. I ordered high speed internet for $25 a month, ironically from the cable company. What I learned is it depends on what you watch. If all you watch is old TV shows and movies, there are lots of free services. If you want to watch live sports, that can be a problem.

 

[Mikey Radio]

The other question is: Are there any advantages of still having cable? If so, what are they?

I think your "bottom line" question is a valid one, especially as more and more programming moves to "streaming only". As I stated in another RadioDiscussions thread which mentioned a number of smaller CATV operators potentially going out of business in 2024, the advantage, and for some the "beauty" of cable is its simplicity, and that's what fybush also alluded to in his post above - You connect the box to the wall outlet or cable coming into your house, connect it to your TV and voila! You have upwards of 1,000 channels using 1 remote for your TV and cable.

In our instance, we have kept CATV because, for us and the specific channels and programming we watch, it still brings us exactly what we want and the price is still the most economical vs. "cutting the cord". My better half watches a few channels often which aren't available on most of the more popular streaming platforms, so we need to consider that. Also, we watch a lot of programming using the "On Demand" feature at Comcast, and depending on the streamer we'd move to, that either wouldn't be available or we'd have to plan and schedule it to record the programs we might want to watch later. Also, we have 2 local Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) which carry our major league basketball, hockey and baseball teams. Subscribing to those as stand-alone services would be about $40/month and they're currently included in our Comcast package. So for us, cutting the cord would mean getting an OTA antenna, and using a combination of our SmartTV and a laptop to get the programming we'd want to see, it complicates things a bit for us without the On-Demand content that Comcast has standard, and in the end, the cost of ditching cable and streaming everything we'd want might save us about $10/month. For now, for us, it's just not worth it. Now, as Comcast continues to raise their monthly rates and as more and more programming moves from OTA and CATV to streaming-only, that might cause us to change our minds.

 

[radiofan2023]

I haven't had cable in 20 years and don't miss it at all.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Like broadcast radio, cable is now just another choice in a fragmented entertainment buffet. Different things work for different people, and each person has to do their own shopping.

At this point, cable may still be the way to go for someone who watches a significant amount of cable news and sports. Someone like that who drops cable will have to replace that programming with a cable replacement streaming service like Sling, YouTube TV or the pricier Fubo (especially for sports).

Add the cost of your now-standalone internet service, and the cost of additional streaming services to watch any OTT channels not included your cable replacement package, and you may find yourself paying close to what you were paying for cable again, especially with the nonstop price hikes coming from all of them now.

The big differences are that your "channels" would then be less unified, and you'll be forced to watch commercials on some platforms that could easily be skipped when they were on a physical DVR.

For people who mainly watch scripted shows, and not a lot of live TV, then cutting the cord makes a lot of sense, That's especially true if you can easily receive your network TV channels via an antenna, and just need to augment that with the straight up entertainment services that interest you.

Finally, not everything is equivalent when it comes to Internet. Wireless internet may be great -- if you have strong, reliable service -- but it's not equivalent to fiber. I recently saw where T-mobile is implementing data caps on some of their plans, too. So there are many things to consider, and one size does not fit all.

The main takeaway from all of this is that, as usual, competition benefits consumers. It keeps prices down and choices up. That benefit will begin to slip away if cable companies shut down and providers consolidate.

 

[Don CT]

Contracts is the big reason. Networks have long term deals with providers.

 

[kwthom]

<...>
But the question is: what are the alternatives? Obviously, streaming. And I've even heard that the antenna is sort of making a comeback. But what about in parts of the country where there's little to no reception, such as Cape Cod, MA? How would they receive local channels if not on cable?

I suppose it would depend on the level of effort necessary to do so. Big antenna? Maybe. Big bandwidth internet service in order to stream?

The other question is: Are there any advantages of still having cable? If so, what are they?

Familiarity. Nearly everyone is familiar with the service.

Whether or not a person is willing to pay to watch TV is another wrinkle to the story. @fybush story about his mom's cable setup. My folks have *never* had cable, and will refuse to pay anything to watch TV.

When I did my analysis, I stumbled onto a web page that helps for searching and comparing video services. In my case, it worked well.; just a satisfied user.

Suppose... you could design your perfect TV service

Suppose lets you select your favorite TV channels, searches billions of combinations of cable, satellite and streaming TV services, and finds the best for you.

www.suppose.tv

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Clearly the numbers are declining, but they still tally in the millions. Not everyone wants to go streaming and/or antenna, or a mixture of both. Any number of reasons can apply differently to each person’s circumstances.

 

[gr8oldies]

I think your "bottom line" question is a valid one, especially as more and more programming moves to "streaming only". As I stated in another RadioDiscussions thread which mentioned a number of smaller CATV operators potentially going out of business in 2024, the advantage, and for some the "beauty" of cable is its simplicity, and that's what fybush also alluded to in his post above - You connect the box to the wall outlet or cable coming into your house, connect it to your TV and voila! You have upwards of 1,000 channels using 1 remote for your TV and cable.

In our instance, we have kept CATV because, for us and the specific channels and programming we watch, it still brings us exactly what we want and the price is still the most economical vs. "cutting the cord". My better half watches a few channels often which aren't available on most of the more popular streaming platforms, so we need to consider that. Also, we watch a lot of programming using the "On Demand" feature at Comcast, and depending on the streamer we'd move to, that either wouldn't be available or we'd have to plan and schedule it to record the programs we might want to watch later. Also, we have 2 local Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) which carry our major league basketball, hockey and baseball teams. Subscribing to those as stand-alone services would be about $40/month and they're currently included in our Comcast package. So for us, cutting the cord would mean getting an OTA antenna, and using a combination of our SmartTV and a laptop to get the programming we'd want to see, it complicates things a bit for us without the On-Demand content that Comcast has standard, and in the end, the cost of ditching cable and streaming everything we'd want might save us about $10/month. For now, for us, it's just not worth it. Now, as Comcast continues to raise their monthly rates and as more and more programming moves from OTA and CATV to streaming-only, that might cause us to change our minds.

After the last Comcast increase, we dropped back to the basic channels. Our bill went up $20 again this month. .

 

[TheBigA]

After the last Comcast increase, we dropped back to the basic channels. Our bill went up $20 again this month. .

You remember the writer's strike? Everybody got an increase? Guess who pays. If you watch anything current, the costs are going up. And the increases will also affect streaming TV.

 

[Weiserguy]

And then in the early 2000s, came digital cable, which was more channels added to the already existing lineup, costing more money. People got it, just because they wanted more channels.

Digital cable was a necessary byproduct of the cable companies' adding "high-speed" broadband services to their offerings, beginning near the end of the last century. The way that was architected, a 6 Mhz TV channel's worth of bandwidth was taken over for downstream data - multiplexed and shared by a number of subscribers - and another channel for upstream (same kind of multiplexed sharing). Those data channels existed in parallel with all the analog TV channels already on the cable.

As the internet became more popular, more people wanted speeds that exceeded dial-up modems over phone lines, and back then there were only two options: DSL from the phone company and high-speed internet from the cable company. And the DSL was inferior. So as more people jumped onto the cable for their internet access, the cable company needed to dedicate more of those 6 Mhz channels to sending the data upstream and downstream. But because of the laws of physics, there was a limit to how many new channels could be added to the top end of the cable spectrum, so there needed to be a more efficient way to transmit a TV channel over the cable than "6 Mhz per individual TV channel".

That's why they all moved to digital cable. They could squeeze multiple TV channels into each single 6 Mhz channel (via compression), freeing up precious bandwidth for that popular, lucrative high-speed internet service.

 

[landtuna]

Here's another angle. My wife works from home but that telephone link requires a digital cable connection so we subscribe to a local cable company's digital landline (cable) service. We OTA or stream video. And OTA does not, in our area, require a roof top antenna. I have either a flat or rabbit ears antenna attached to each TV in the house - 4 at last count. We get all but a few of the low power stations. I watch primarily live sports. My wife watches mostly network dramas.

 

[ssetta]

I wanted to bump up this thread because there's another point I forgot to bring up. Internet/TV providers like Verizon and Xfinity still have commercials, but nowadays the commercials are usually strictly for Internet and they don't even mention the TV service they have. That almost proves that it's on its way out.

 

[Gregg.]

>>>Most people are cutting the cord and ditching cable because just about everything that's on cable is available on streaming. But my question is: if nobody uses something anymore, then why does it still exist?<<<

Nearly everything on cable is available streaming? Where? Let's say you want to watch "The Big Bang Theory." It's on your local independent TV station at 7 and 7:30 pm. Where does that stream? You want to watch it from TBS? There's no free streaming for that either.

I know that you can subscribe to services like Hulu, Roku, Apple, Disney. But they cost money. Add them up and they'll be the same or more than cable.

How about broadcast television? Some folks can get a clear picture over the air with a TV antenna. For them, that's great. All the regular broadcast channels and the diginets for free! But for many folks, it's hard to get a good signal. Your living room is on the first floor and it's not on the side of the house that faces the transmitter tower. So good luck with just a simple antenna on your wall.

Maybe your market has transmitter towers all over the region, so pointing the antenna one way gives you some signals. But you have to reposition it for other signals. There's a way to hook two antennas up together. But again, it's complicated.

Yes, some folks are cutting the cord as a way to economize. But they are going to have to put up with not getting many of the channels and shows they used to get.

 

[TheBigA]

Nearly everything on cable is available streaming? Where? Let's say you want to watch "The Big Bang Theory." It's on your local independent TV station at 7 and 7:30 pm. Where does that stream? You want to watch it from TBS? There's no free streaming for that either.

It depends on the show. There are several free streaming services like Pluto or Tubi that have old movies and TV series:

9 Free Streaming Services to Save You From Subscription Hell

You may not have heard of Tubi, Freevee, or Kanopy—but they’re the perfect cure for subscriber fatigue.

www.wired.com

 

[gr8oldies]

It depends on the show. There G several free streaming services like Pluto or Tubi that have old movies and TV series:

9 Free Streaming Services to Save You From Subscription Hell

You may not have heard of Tubi, Freevee, or Kanopy—but they’re the perfect cure for subscriber fatigue.

www.wired.com

True. Since we went to the bare-bones cable, my wife can't stream current episodes of Pioneer Woman and Girl Meets Farm (they are on Food Network first, and on Discovery Plus a year later). We've been trying to find a solution for NASCAR, which are scattered across 3 networks and their subchannels. Cord cutting in saving money? Not in my universe.

 

[Negin]

Some areas the internet is still non-existent or slower then a turtle. Streaming still has a long way to go before 99% of the population could use it without issues.

 

[CTListener]

Some areas the internet is still non-existent or slower then a turtle. Streaming still has a long way to go before 99% of the population could use it without issues.

It's safe to say that to Corporate America and Wall Street, those unfortunates who choose to live in areas without internet service or with slow internet are nothing more than a rounding error on the media companies' SEC filings -- basically non-people, easily ignored.