Why does cable still exist?

[TheBigA]

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.

Although keep in mind that the infrastructure bill that passed congress attempts to address that situation.

 

[Mark Roberts]

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.

The combined cost for me of fiber Internet and YouTube TV is about half of what it was for cable TV+cable Internet at my former location. We can still get what we want, and more, actually. OTA reception is fine with an amplified antenna, but YouTube TV gives us DVR capabilities and the cable channels that we want without the "regional" sports channels that we had no use for. We might get an add-on when cycling racing season starts, but otherwise don't care about sports.

 

[CTListener]

Although keep in mind that the infrastructure bill that passed congress attempts to address that situation.

Was corporate PAC money deployed in an effort to block the legislation or are the telecoms OK with filling in the coverage holes?

 

[Mark Roberts]

Although keep in mind that the infrastructure bill that passed congress attempts to address that situation.

Rural electric cooperatives in some areas are also rolling out fiber Internet services.

 

[TheBigA]

Was corporate PAC money deployed in an effort to block the legislation or are the telecoms OK with filling in the coverage holes?

Here's what one telecom group said about that:

Broadband industry representatives say they support the new law, too. “We are encouraged that the bipartisan infrastructure deal directly addresses two critical elements of reaching universal connectivity: dedicating funding first and foremost to those regions without any broadband service, and providing financial assistance to help low-income Americans subscribe to this critical service,” says a spokesperson for NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, the trade group representing cable companies and internet providers.

The money is being given to the states, and they would decide how it would be spent.

As the quote says, a chunk of the money is a tax credit to lower income filers to apply towards the payment of their internet bill. So it assists telecoms in enlarging their potential customer base.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

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.

Confirmation bias at work. I have it, or I've done it, so it's universally true.

 

[tall_guy1]

>>>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.

Big Bang is on Max.

 

[JeeperOne]

We got cable not long after it came to Denver when Mile High Cablevision (Now part of Exfinity (Note the pun ) launched back in the late 1970s (we didn't get it till about 1980 though)

Basic cable back then consisted of the locals, CNN, ESPN, USA, HBO, Cinemax, The Movie Channel, WGN, WOR, WTBS (WOR didn't become WWOR until long after it left Denver & WTBS wasn't shortened to TBS untiol MANY YEARS later when it was paired with TNT) & a few others

KTLA, WPIX & WSBK weren't available on cable though you could get them on satellite (REAL satellite - NOT "Pizza" satellite as I sometimes like to call it)

While my parents got for improved reception of the locals (Not that we really needed it where we lived but it eliminated the need to use rabbit ears & fiddle with the UHF loop on the back of the set after KDVR went on the air but I was fascinated with WGN & WOR as they were Independents like JWGN & KDVR were (WTBS was also an Independent though not as traditional as WGN & WOR were)

The cost - Less than JUST ONE of the locals today

 

[JeeperOne]

>>>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.

Big Bang is on Max.

Which is not free