Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 156 posts

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#21

Post by HarryBryant »

There's never going to be a "catch-all" service. Why would these other players resign themselves to the idea that Amazon and Netflix are the only streaming services that should exist.

We've begun the cord-cutting process. We still have Spectrum, but a super-cheap package that you can only get by getting to the 2nd tier customer service and threaten to cancel. It comes with like 10 channels and HBO for $20 or so. We also have Netflix and Amazon.

The Roku has the Sprectrum, Amazon, and Netflix apps, so we don't have to use multiple devices. Our Samsung has the apps too, but not a big fan of Samsung apps.

But the point is that we're at least getting closer to a la carte, so not getting the author's point at all.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#22

Post by trynumber9 »

usaphp wrote: post #4

I have a question to US people, when you say "cord cutter" - what exactly do you mean? Because you still need to pay for internet to the same cable company, and the price is only 5-10% cheaper compared to the same plan with cable box? Am I not understanding it correctly?

Varies by region. My ISP is not a cable company* and about half as expensive (for 150mbps symmetrical) as the competition.

* They do offer packages with TV but those are provided by some other company.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#23

Post by usaphp »

Swizec wrote: post #19
karmelapple wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few notes: * "First X months" deals are everywhere in home internet access. Buying TV and internet together is usually only slightly more expensive than internet alone for the first 12 months. After that, I'm guessing they hope you've become dependent on it or forget your prices went up. * I think "cord cutting" generally meant eliminating the cable plugin to the TV. Sure, a cable still goes to your modem, but if y…

> Buying TV and internet together is usually only slightly more expensive than internet alone for the first 12 months. It's even worse than that, Comcast won't even sell me their top tier internet without TV and the next tier down is only $10 cheaper but less than half the bandwidth. So I'm paying for cable that I have nowhere to plug into because I don't own a TV anyway.

> So I'm paying for cable that I have nowhere to plug into because I don't own a TV anyway.

But you can watch all the channels online using their channel websites or phone apps if you want to. They ask your cable subscription login to verify.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#24

Post by ovao »

tested23 wrote: post #12

I remember how people on the internet used to complain about how they didn’t want all of the garbage channels that were bundled with cable. Now they are complaining about being able to pick and choose what they pay for. (Yes you don’t need to have access to every subscription service) Two things to note, pirates will always find some way to rationalize their theft and the consumer is a child that wants to have their…

A good consumer will always want to have their cake and eat it too: that isn't childish. A consumer's expectation that it will always pan out that way is the point of naiveté.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#25

Post by ajmurmann »

bunderbunder wrote: post #17

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest…

Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see this go even further and have nothing bundled. I much rather pay straight up for the shows I'm watching than get some bundle. Many shows are about $20 on Amazon or Play which is totally reasonable; you end up owning it and only pay for what you want. That's the model I like best. Unlikely to get everyone on that boat though.

EDIT: typos

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#26

Post by votepaunchy »

usaphp wrote: post #18
ben1040 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "cord cutter" term is a little odd because you're still probably buying internet from the cable company; you're just not buying their video services. When I first signed up for cable, Charter Spectrum had me on a promotional plan - 130/5 internet and extended basic cable (essentially everything but HBO/Cinemax/Starz/Encore), for around $110/month. This was a 1-year promotional price offered only to new customers.…

I am paying $120 for 300mbps internet + TV + phone and some soccer sport pass right now, I just contacted Charter (who bought TWC here) to ask how much just the internet would cost me, and they told me it is going to cost $105 just for the internet. So by "cord cutting" I actually only hurting myself here, no?

Are you paying for a DVR? Verizon and Commcast charge about $15/month per TV.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#27

Post by sverige »

ghaff wrote: post #16

There's possibly some opportunity that, if you really don't want any real-time sports, you could possibly save some money by stripping that from subscription offerings. But fantasies that removing the Home and Garden Channel from bundles reduces the monthly bill are just fantasies. In some respects, fragmentation is a mental overhead. But that's going to be the reality and the end result isn't going to be any cheaper…

ESPN accounts for a huge percentage of most monthly cable bill cost. I never watch live sports, nor do a pretty good percentage of cable subscribers. Just cutting ESPN could reduce cable bills by a third to a half in a lot of markets. This is why ESPN is suffering financially as cord cutting increases.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#28

Post by usaphp »

votepaunchy wrote: post #26
usaphp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am paying $120 for 300mbps internet + TV + phone and some soccer sport pass right now, I just contacted Charter (who bought TWC here) to ask how much just the internet would cost me, and they told me it is going to cost $105 just for the internet. So by "cord cutting" I actually only hurting myself here, no?

Are you paying for a DVR? Verizon and Commcast charge about $15/month per TV.

Nope, don't have a DVR

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#29

Post by votepaunchy »

bencoder wrote: post #14
tested23 wrote: post #12

I remember how people on the internet used to complain about how they didn’t want all of the garbage channels that were bundled with cable. Now they are complaining about being able to pick and choose what they pay for. (Yes you don’t need to have access to every subscription service) Two things to note, pirates will always find some way to rationalize their theft and the consumer is a child that wants to have their…

The problem with the cable bundles is they bundled maybe one thing/channel you want with a bunch of crap you don't to bulk it out and make it seem worth it. Honestly I'm happy to pay for the different 'bundles' like Netflix, prime and hbo (and Disney if I had kids). But I want it under one service, with the ability to pay a one-off fee to watch something I'm not subscribed to. At the moment the fragmentation is crazy…

This aggregation of services is what Apple is doing with their TV app. And with iOS 11 the major providers will be in on SSO.
Post reply on HN