Comments on: In Defense of Cable

By: Cheap(er) Ways to Stay Entertained During the Downturn « NewTeeVee

Cheap(er) Ways to Stay Entertained During the Downturn « NewTeeVee — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:01:20 +0000

[...] few months ago, I defended the value of cable, writing that $70 a month wasn’t a bad deal for what you get. But as your wallet gets [...]

By: Andy Tarczon

Andy Tarczon — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:43:10 +0000

Great comments and great topic, but let’s not think of this as an all or nothing debate. Today, web video is at a point where it is a supplement to existing PayTV services. HULU and other sites are good as virtual DVRs (and great chances to find other shows); however, when my colleagues tested consumer preference, 83% of broadband households chose the TV as the primary viewing platform.

So let’s jump into the not-so-distant future and suppose HULU or ABC’s Hi-Def player are coming to the TV screen. Suddenly you have a much more compelling argument for open platforms and web delivery… well sans sport, but we’re getting closer.

For now, expect to maintain a blended model-the efficiencies of paytv delivery with the selectivity (in terms of time and content) of web-based video.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:25:46 +0000

Your math also skips over one important fact: no TV shows put out 52 episodes a year. To assume that I watch 10 shows a week, and would be paying for them on iTunes totally misses the fact that over half the time I’m watching a re-run. I can watch that show on iTunes again as well, I just don’t have to pay for it again. I don’t know how long I’ve been waiting for a new episode of Lost, but Comcast certainly isn’t discounting my bill in the meantime…

By: Dave's Football Blog

Dave's Football Blog — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:26:25 +0000

There’s one thing that Apple TV offers that most cable and satellite providers can’t/won’t — free video podcasts. That’s a mighty huge catalog of video that people can download and watch without paying a dime, and while finding the good stuff can be tricky, there’s something worthwhile out there for everyone.

I’m paying $1,100/year for non-HD satellite TV, largely because I’m a sports fan/blogger. ($180 of that is Setanta Sports. Gotta have my Premier League and Aussie Rules fixes.) If Apple TV could stream the ESPN channels or ESPN360 and a soccer channel or two, even in non-HD, I’d have to consider it. Disney owns ESPN and Steve Jobs has a huge stake in Disney, so you’d have to think they could find a way to make this happen if they wanted to.

That said, it would probably require too many companies cooperating with each other, which never happens anymore. Plus, cable companies would probably punish ESPN for making a deal with Apple.

By: cb

cb — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:55:52 +0000

You pay $800.00 for cable and you get bandwidth that is so slow and behind in comparison with other countries. At the same time, you get forced fed corporate speak news -dumb down style with commercials. This is called let’s continue to put the screws to the dumb public. Is it our fault for not fighting back or is it that they don’t care what we say? Keep in mind the communications companies have great friends in Congress and the Senate who they help elect. I say speak with your wallets because as we continue in this economic downturn it won’t be long before you’ll choose food over cable.

By: online meeting reviews

online meeting reviews — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:31:13 +0000

Yea don’t do it if you like sports. Comcast also has a ton of shows for free available on it’s website. They even have premium cable shows available to watch online. Hulu is probably the best, but has a lot of clips to sort through.

By: Tim Panton

Tim Panton — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:43:46 +0000

There is a critical difference between iTunes and cable/sky.
There are no advertising breaks in an iTunes show.

Depending on what you figure you time is worth, that
10 mins saved out of every tv hour – 400 mins a month
in your example – will pay for a _lot_ of downloads.

By: ericabiz

ericabiz — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:16:03 +0000

I have the best of all worlds. I have a TiVo, hooked up to Comcast. I originally had the digital cable +++ package (whatever they’re calling it these days), but when my 6-month special expired I simply downgraded to Limited Basic.

Still have the TiVo; it still records all my network shows in HD. Subscribed to Netflix to get some movies that I would have otherwise gotten from the premium channels.

In all, I pay -$.85/month for the cable subscription (yes, you read that right — Comcast offers a 2-package discount, and Limited Basic is cheaper than the discount) + $18/mo for Netflix, instead of $80/month.

Saving $60/month and getting more content than I had before = awesome!

-Erica

By: BuyLowSellHigh

BuyLowSellHigh — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:12:24 +0000

So what you’re saying is that if:

1) I am addicted to sports, or
2) I have a large, diverse family, who I think should pick and choose whatever cable programs they want to watch

Then cable is the better option?

Of course these are fine reasons for a lot of people to choose cable, but if the rest are better off with pay-per-use then that’s good news to me, because “the rest”, then, is a pretty big group of people,

Sorry, but I think the quality of GigaOM has deteriorated a lot over the last year. The whole war against pay-per-bandwidth never made sense to me and I think this falls in the same category: A pandering to the established media outlets that’s hard to ignore when GigaOM is, in fact, a part of that etablishment.

By: jdrake90

jdrake90 — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:38:23 +0000

I think that’s the beauty of Hulu…. all the shows you want to watch for free. If the kids really want that 11th show – tell them to watch it online and save the money. Or watch everything on line (thats what I do) and spend nothing.