Will Cable internet kill cable TV?

[LinuxFanBoi]

Just out of curiosity, With services like Hulu popping up offing free add sponsored television content over the internet, as well as ever faster and faster broadband offered by cable companies, does anyone think that eventually this content will be delivered over IP rather than through a separate cable or satellite subscription?

What impact will this have on the price of internet services offered by companies who where founded on offering TV content if their customers no longer need to pay for two services when they need only pay for internet to get both?

I subscribe to an 18 Mbps package through Cox communications and I can watch full 1080p content content with no visible quality loss over IP and with most of the programming I'm interested in available through some form of IP based video on demand, I'm actually considering dumping my Digital Cable TV subscription for the first time.

What are your thoughts on this?

[KiwiNZ]

This will only occur when Data caps are assigned to history

[Tristam Green]

until Hulu and Youtube allow streaming through my PS3 natively, then no. I'll use my antenna and whatever else I can.

[pricetech]

I think you're forgetting those folks who simply don't have a computer and don't want one, as well as those who just prefer to watch tv on a tv set.

[Exodist]

Will Cable internet kill cable TV?

I actually think over the next 5 years we will see stations merging into a TV Channel/ Website per se. Much like on demand is in a way. But kinda like a news web page with different shows going at any given time.

[LinuxFanBoi]

This will only occur when Data caps are assigned to history

JMHO, I believe that these question are exactly why the big media companies are out to kill net neutrality. Innovation is threatening to cut into their bottom line.

If they can block your ability to view content that you would otherwise have to pay a separate subscription for, they can continue to force you to pay for something you could otherwise get for free.

Am I write or wrong in the assumption?

[KiwiNZ]

JMHO, I believe that these question are exactly why the big media companies are out to kill net neutrality. Innovation is threatening to cut into their bottom line.

If they can block your ability to view content that you would otherwise have to pay a separate subscription for, they can continue to force you to pay for something you could otherwise get for free.

Am I write or wrong in the assumption?

Not here in NZ they can't

[RabbitWho]

Web TV and internet TV will just become more and more like each other, it's evolution, neither will die out.. but at the same time each will die a thousand tiny little deaths... like my soul

[Ms_Angel_D]

I don't know about killing it all together, but I bet it won't be the cash cow it has been in the past.

I think it would be immensely smart of Networks to start offering ala cart subscriptions for content online, I personally would pay for a hulu like desktop application that gives me access to good content on demand. It would be much, much better than any "package" cable currently offers. People have been asking for this from cable companies for years, if the network itself decided to offer this option they could skip the middleman of cable all together.

[lisati]

Not here in NZ they can't

I think I'll make do with my Freeview (http://www.freeviewnz.tv/) set top box & HDD/DVD recorder for now, without getting suckered into SkyTV's offerings (http://www.skytv.co.nz/Default.aspx?tabid=488) (needs a subscription to work), or investing in a Tivo (http://www.mytivo.co.nz/) or "MyFreeview (http://www.freeviewnz.tv/products/listing/all/digital_television_recorders)" box (too large an "up front" cost for our budget at the moment, even though there's no monthly subscription).

[squilookle]

I don't believe so: the internet will gain more and more users, but at the same time, televisions, and the services that go with them, will become more and more advanced.

People might mess around with youtube and such, and a few people might watch television on the computer, but until you can watch stuff on a big screen on the computer from a comfy settee, the television will not go anywhere. Also, as somebody else mentioned, the data caps would have to be thrown out.

[steeleyuk]

When people talk about Internet TV, they assume that televisions will be consigned to the bin and everyone will be sat in front of a computer. I think they'll still be around, just connected directly to the web through Ethernet/Wireless rather than an aerial/dish/set-top box.

[LinuxFanBoi]

When people talk about Internet TV, they assume that televisions will be consigned to the bin and everyone will be sat in front of a computer. I think they'll still be around, just connected directly to the web through Ethernet/Wireless rather than an aerial/dish/set-top box.

Once I was having issues with my Digital cable service. the technician pulled up some of the service menus on the set top box and wouldn't you know it, the box had an IP address. So I believe that our cable TV is already being served up IP style we just don't know it because the interface is a proprietary UI implemented by whomever manufactures the set top box.

The difference is, now there are other providers for the content besides our cable co's.

I'm not saying that TV viewing will be relegated to the PC desk, but that content could very easily be streamed to our 50" plasma and LCD screens. The HTPC comes to mind, but as someone said, some people don't want to own a PC. HTPC's have yet to gain ground with anyone but the enthusiasts as of yet. Other methods already exist to do this such as extenders, but are far from mainstream.

[squilookle]

I've seen those service menus when the technicians were round too both when it was being installed, and when they had to come out because my next door neighbour accidentally cut through my cable... ](*,)

[plurworldinc]

I think you're forgetting those folks who simply don't have a computer and don't want one, as well as those who just prefer to watch tv on a tv set.

I believe as technology grows old mediums are phased out, the old fashion rabbit ears are now a thing of the past with DTV as a step towards the future.

Now for my self I haven't owned cable in years and since there are services like HULU there is no real need because I can just run HULU fun time from an somewhat old computer I am not really using anymore.

[lykwydchykyn]

I suspect the technologies will converge over time. Now that all television is essentially digital, it's just a question of how you get it from the studio to the customer's screen.

[LowSky]

People might mess around with youtube and such, and a few people might watch television on the computer, but until you can watch stuff on a big screen on the computer from a comfy settee, the television will not go anywhere. Also, as somebody else mentioned, the data caps would have to be thrown out.

My 37" HDTV is hook up to one of my computers, my computer records TV much like Tivo, and also has Hulu desktop installed.
I have the lowest cable internet package that is 15MB/s download and 2 MB/s upload that feeds roughly 2-5 computers at one time. I can watch HD video 90% of time with maybe a 2% of the time it stutters.

I barely watch live TV, so having a computer that can catch up on all my favorite shows is a great thing.

[sdowney717]

it is all about content. My dish network provides lots of video that the Internet does not carry.
Networks do not put all their full episodes on the net, not yet. (Some are starting to do this)
I could see a time maybe when this happens. Hulu is already saying they will charge for premium content. Would you want to pay Discovery Channel a monthly fee to watch full episodes off the web? Right now Dish Network negotiates contracts with all their providers and bundles this into a channel lineup. If the networks all were to offer streaming content what would you think the monthly fee would be for each of these sites? Likely it would cost you more to get all the same content.
I wonder if they can make money with advertising as the only payer. I read that Hulu is still losing money.

[hkgonra]

JMHO, I believe that these question are exactly why the big media companies are out to kill net neutrality. Innovation is threatening to cut into their bottom line.

If they can block your ability to view content that you would otherwise have to pay a separate subscription for, they can continue to force you to pay for something you could otherwise get for free.

Am I write or wrong in the assumption?

Net neutrality has much more to do with government control (1984) than it does with "protecting us" from corporations.

Back to the thread ,
I think it is very likely that it will. Even for those people without computers we will see TV's with browser based OS's. I think Chrome OS is another step towards this eventual end to TV as we know it.

[lisati]

When people talk about Internet TV, they assume that televisions will be consigned to the bin and everyone will be sat in front of a computer. I think they'll still be around, just connected directly to the web through Ethernet/Wireless rather than an aerial/dish/set-top box.

I will still have a use for my TV when the analog TV broadcasts here are eventually switched off for good - it'll still be useful for playing DVDs and, assuming I haven't transferred them to DVD, a pile of stuff on VHS.

I'm slowly replacing my VHS collection with DVD versions. What's the bet that when I've completed the task, DVD will be obsolete?

[mynameinc]

No. The marketers for electronics companies have convinced people the two devices have two separate purposes, and that everybody in the house needs both. Just like burial and life insurance.

[MasterNetra]

Not for a good while, but everything comes to a end at somepoint and of course to every end a new beginning.


No. The marketers for electronics companies have convinced people the two devices have two separate purposes, and that everybody in the house needs both. Just like burial and life insurance.

Pssh I can bury myself when I die just fine. :p

[steeleyuk]

I will still have a use for my TV when the analog TV broadcasts here are eventually switched off for good - it'll still be useful for playing DVDs and, assuming I haven't transferred them to DVD, a pile of stuff on VHS.

I'm slowly replacing my VHS collection with DVD versions. What's the bet that when I've completed the task, DVD will be obsolete?

It will be years before the changes come to the way we receive TV, and at least you can convert your TV to digital using a set-top box.

For anybody that doesn't know, at the beginning of October, England had a football (soccer) game. There was nothing to play for so none of the traditional TV networks (Sky, BBC, ITV, ESPN, etc) wanted to pay the rights to show it.

An Internet streaming company bought the rights and there were thousands of people whinging about the YouTube/iPlayer-style quality, with those who have no clue about tech and the Internet saying that streaming would never take off... with many saying that they would never want to sit in front of the computer. They clearly hadn't thought that within the next few years the TV will have a direct connection to the Internet.

There's still a way to go with the quality, number of people able to access at one time and the quality of links (nothing more annoying that the connection dropping) but there are plenty of times in technology were you have to go backwards to go forwards.

[pricetech]

I'm slowly replacing my VHS collection with DVD versions. What's the bet that when I've completed the task, DVD will be obsolete?

I won't bet against it. I remember moving from 8 track to cassette and how quickly the cassettes became obsolete.

[pricetech]

[QUOTE=mynameinc;8381841Just like burial and life insurance.[/QUOTE]

<tangent>
Burial Insurance is more about pre planning than anything else, though most burial insurance policies are more "burial savings" than conventional insurance. (Maybe I should start a poll in the Community Cafe on that subject)
</tangent>