Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,305
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

I may be late to the party but learned something today.

 

An AT&T tech came to my house to connect me to their fiber optic line.  I've had DirecTV/AT&T for a very long time.

 

We got to talking about TVs & viewing choices he told me Uverse was going to be discontinued.  Of course I have Uverse.  Everything would be streamed through DirecTV technology.   No need for a satellite but if you don't have a smart TV, one of ours is not, it would take a Roku or Fire Stick to access stations formerly carried on Uverse.

 

Technology is always changing.  Does this mean cable TV is officially dead?

 

 

Valued Contributor
Posts: 894
Registered: ‎04-20-2010

Spectrum does not have Uverse or use DirectTV. 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,113
Registered: ‎09-30-2010

Re: AT&T Uverse

[ Edited ]

@softwareNot while Comcast and Cox are still doing big business as cable providers.

 

As irked at the ever increasing cost from Comcast I continue to be a long-time customer (since 1982) since it gives me the speed I need for my MacBook wireless connection and all the Xfinity features and a wide range of channels.  And they have improved their stores AND customer service, both of which used to be abysmal.

 

I've done the math and the "cut the cord" switch to streaminng only doesn't work for me and the prices for each streaming purveyor--Netflix, Disney Plus, AMC or whatever it is called, Paramount, and on and on, keep raising their individual prices and pretty soon the supposed savings won't be there.

 

Just my take on this evolution at the moment.  Time may prove that my perception is incorrect. 

 

Have a wonderful weekend.

 

aroc34

Washington, DC

 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 18,648
Registered: ‎01-10-2013

I live in New Jersey and have Comcast and very rarely have an issue!

happy-saturday-gif-image

Honored Contributor
Posts: 24,203
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

"Does this mean cable TV is officially dead?"

 

It's not officially dead, but it's getting there. Frontier dropped their cable TV offerings a while back also. Streaming is the future. Comcast even offers a free streaming box with their Internet, so they know that's the way things will be going forward. The major providers are transitioning from cable to streaming. Content providers have been holding cable companies at gunpoint to get more and more money from them and that's driven down profit margins while increasing costs. Cable TV companies are in business to make money and if they can't make money they get out of the business. And the way things are going, they can't make money.

 

In the good old days of the cable TV industry when there were few channel slots open, the cable companies made a lot of money. Our original cable used the TV's VHF tuner so there were twelve possible channel slots (2-13) with most taken up by local channels. Then they switched to a two cable system with an A/B switch and suddenly the number of changes doubled to 24! There were a lot of channels that wanted to be on one of those channels and they would buy the space from the cable companies. Why would they pay to be carried? Their ad rates would vary depending on how many systems they were on, so the more systems they were on, the more ad revenue they'd generate. If they wanted to sell ads, they needed to be on lots of systems.

 

Then along came MTV to ruin it all for the cable companies. They'd been willing to pay to be carried then decided, no. We want the cable companies to pay us. It was the "I want my MTV!" campaign. Cable companies had gotten people used to having MTV and now when faced with having to pay to air it, or take it off, they agreed to pay to air it. Uh oh! Now every channel decided, "Hey, if MTV gets paid, we should get paid!"

 

Pretty soon every channel wanted to be paid and with new digital cable boxes offering hundreds of slots that cable companies needed to fill, the downhill spiral started. Cable companies lost a source of revenue and what had been income now became an expense. If they wanted to keep the channels their users wanted, they had to pay up more and more and more. Every new contract came at a higher cost. That's why cable bills went from under $10 a month to now often well over $100 a month.

 

Streaming takes the costs and moves them to the consumer. If you want ESPN, then you buy a package that includes ESPN. If you don't like ESPN, you can buy a package without it. The cable companies had to pay for ESPN for everyone. Even those who never watched it.

 

Cable TV isn't totally dead yet, but it's getting there. 

 

Fly!!! Eagles!!! Fly!!!
Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,305
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

@aroc3435 wrote:

@softwareNot while Comcast and Cox are still doing big business as cable providers.

 

As irked at the ever increasing cost from Comcast I continue to be a long-time customer (since 1982) since it gives me the speed I need for my MacBook wireless connection and all the Xfinity features and a wide range of channels.  And they have improved their stores AND customer service, both of which used to be abysmal.

 

I've done the math and the "cut the cord" switch to streaminng only doesn't work for me and the prices for each streaming purveyor--Netflix, Disney Plus, AMC or whatever it is called, Paramount, and on and on, keep raising their individual prices and pretty soon the supposed savings won't be there.

 

Just my take on this evolution at the moment.  Time may prove that my perception is incorrect. 

 

Have a wonderful weekend.

 

aroc34

Washington, DC

 


 

 

As long as I have internet, I believe I can forego "cable"   I don't watch but just a couple of "cable" channels,mostly for the "noise" I don't have to watch local news, everything is online.  I remember local news being an issue when cutting the cord.   I doubt I would  pay for anything if I were to cut the cord.   I'm just not invested.   I live with my daughter, I access her Netflix.   

 

Have a wonderful weekend, too

Honored Contributor
Posts: 9,305
Registered: ‎06-08-2016

I lived through all of those changes, it was interesting to read your history lesson of cable TV.  

 

I remember that A/B switch!

I found myself on the wrong one, always

 


@gardenman wrote:

"Does this mean cable TV is officially dead?"

 

It's not officially dead, but it's getting there. Frontier dropped their cable TV offerings a while back also. Streaming is the future. Comcast even offers a free streaming box with their Internet, so they know that's the way things will be going forward. The major providers are transitioning from cable to streaming. Content providers have been holding cable companies at gunpoint to get more and more money from them and that's driven down profit margins while increasing costs. Cable TV companies are in business to make money and if they can't make money they get out of the business. And the way things are going, they can't make money.

 

In the good old days of the cable TV industry when there were few channel slots open, the cable companies made a lot of money. Our original cable used the TV's VHF tuner so there were twelve possible channel slots (2-13) with most taken up by local channels. Then they switched to a two cable system with an A/B switch and suddenly the number of changes doubled to 24! There were a lot of channels that wanted to be on one of those channels and they would buy the space from the cable companies. Why would they pay to be carried? Their ad rates would vary depending on how many systems they were on, so the more systems they were on, the more ad revenue they'd generate. If they wanted to sell ads, they needed to be on lots of systems.

 

Then along came MTV to ruin it all for the cable companies. They'd been willing to pay to be carried then decided, no. We want the cable companies to pay us. It was the "I want my MTV!" campaign. Cable companies had gotten people used to having MTV and now when faced with having to pay to air it, or take it off, they agreed to pay to air it. Uh oh! Now every channel decided, "Hey, if MTV gets paid, we should get paid!"

 

Pretty soon every channel wanted to be paid and with new digital cable boxes offering hundreds of slots that cable companies needed to fill, the downhill spiral started. Cable companies lost a source of revenue and what had been income now became an expense. If they wanted to keep the channels their users wanted, they had to pay up more and more and more. Every new contract came at a higher cost. That's why cable bills went from under $10 a month to now often well over $100 a month.

 

Streaming takes the costs and moves them to the consumer. If you want ESPN, then you buy a package that includes ESPN. If you don't like ESPN, you can buy a package without it. The cable companies had to pay for ESPN for everyone. Even those who never watched it.

 

Cable TV isn't totally dead yet, but it's getting there. 

 


 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,627
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@software wrote:

I may be late to the party but learned something today.

 

An AT&T tech came to my house to connect me to their fiber optic line.  I've had DirecTV/AT&T for a very long time.

 

We got to talking about TVs & viewing choices he told me Uverse was going to be discontinued.  Of course I have Uverse.  Everything would be streamed through DirecTV technology.   No need for a satellite but if you don't have a smart TV, one of ours is not, it would take a Roku or Fire Stick to access stations formerly carried on Uverse.

 

Technology is always changing.  Does this mean cable TV is officially dead?

 

 


@software 

We have the AT&T bundle with Internet, TV, & phone.  Our TV is Direct TV but it's not Uverse, it's Satellite.  So if Internet goes down for any reason, we still have TV.  Our TV reception continued throughout Cat 4 Hurricane Ida.  Satellite stayed secure on the roof, surprisingly. TV reception is excellent.

 

AT&T fiber came to our neighborhood a few months back, but that didn't affect our TV, only our internet.

"Breathe in, breathe out, move on." Jimmy Buffett