HDTV Expert - Can You Cut the Cord and Still Find Happiness in TV Land?

[Roger Halstead]

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.

[Roger Halstead]

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.

[Rodolfo]

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

[Roger Halstead]

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.