What's crazy is that Comcast is in a great postion to go head-to-head Netflix. They are positioned to go vertical in a way that Netflix can't even dream of.<p>* They have a relationship with a huge base of existing customers. They're one of the few players with a subscriber base close to Netflix (who just passed Comcast).<p>* They have a large network based on good technology. Sure, it's not fiber, but it's a lot better than what most of the RBOCs are sitting on, and Netflix has zero.<p>* As part of NBC, they have established relationships with all the major content providers.<p>* They own the distribution channel from content library, transport, and the end-user equipment.<p>The problem, from my experience, with Xfinity is that the "experience" sucks. Their cable box is a slow, buggy pile of crap. Browsing content on my cable box is only marginally better than the craptastic PPV movie systems in a cheap hotel. The new Xfinity apps for my iOS devices are a huge step up, but I'm not convinced that using my iOS device as a remote for my television is where I want to be. This is what the experience is like:<p>* Pick up my iPad and browser for "OnDemand" content
* Initiate playback from my iPad
* Switch to the Comcast remote to play/pause, ffwd/rwnd
* Experience huge lag in response to my control inputs from any of these devices<p>I've measured it, and it can take up to three full seconds for my cable box to respond to inputs. Three seconds is an eternity when you compare it to the Netflix app running on my PS3. Not to mention, with Netflix, I don't have to keep my iPad around. I can just use the PS3 remote to browse, select, play, and ffwd/rwnd content. And it's responsive.<p>Comcast has only themselves to blame for this situation. They're sitting on all the right pieces, and no individual component is a huge weakness if you believe that going vertical is the right approach.<p>Such a shame.
I pay Comcast ~$70/month for internet. I can get DSL cheaper, but only at lower performance tiers. It's decent service, I'm not too upset.<p>I pay Netflix $8/month.<p>Comcast may experience some creative destruction, but even with their physical infrastructure they really ought to be able to survive at those rates. I'm "sorry" they're losing their content business, but it's not as if they didn't have years of opportunity to figure out what to do about it.
I'm in the same boat as many of you, paying the cable company for internet access and relying on Netflix and Hulu for content (I subscribe to Hulu plus, though I confess I was largely looking for some way, any way, to give Hulu some of my money for the service they provide me).<p>My question, though, for others like me...how many of you have more than two adults and/or teenagers in the house? Right now it's just me and my wife and my young daughter. I remember growing up, though...in my family, we had multiple TVs in the house, with everybody often watching something different. Cable TV provides the bandwidth for that, but I was thinking it may be awhile before cable internet provides enough bandwidth for that use case.<p>Of course, it could be that as this generation of new parents gets used to not having a cable bill, families may grow used to watching TV together or watching it less overall. That might be the greatest contribution that TV-over-Internet provides us, in the long run.
Between Hulu (free) & Netflix ($8/mo), the only bill I pay to cable is for internet.<p>It seems to me that Hulu is way worse for cable companies than Netflix, as Hulu lets me watch current shows nearly immediately. If I didn't have Hulu, I might get basic cable for current shows.
I know it's not a representative sample, but all but 1 of my friends have cancelled cable in favor of Netflix + Hulu. So I'm continually surprised to hear that cable subscriptions aren't falling.<p>What I really don't get is why HBO won't sell to me directly. I think that would be the last nail in $100/month cable bills.<p>"Can I get HBO On Demand if I don't have HBO? No. HBO On Demand is exclusively for HBO subscribers." from <a href="http://www.hboondemand.com/faq.html#faq7" rel="nofollow">http://www.hboondemand.com/faq.html#faq7</a>
I've been without cable TV for over 10 years and don't miss it at all. Just another industry with lazy incumbents whose lunch is being eaten by a competitor that is giving customers what they've been asking for for decades.<p>Now I wish someone would just break up the sports broadcasting cartel. ESPN has way too much power to dictate how its customers can view its contents. What the hell is an ESPN 360 compatible cable internet provider? One that is willing to pay their tariff?
Comacast was charging me 4 or 5 times more than Netflix per month and still, twenty minutes of every hour consisted of advertising. That is, a third of my watching time was spent muting the television and twiddling my thumbs.<p>Pretty much Comcast can go jump in a lake as far as I'm concerned. Of course, now that Comcast, through MSNBC, provides both service AND content, I'm sure they'll put a stop to Netflix as soon as possible. Thanks, FCC!
I've just spent three months trying cable and have decided to cancel it. At this point one thing would entice me back: channels a la carte. I like watching sports sometimes and occasionally like watching a Discovery Channel-type show in Spanish and seeing how much I can understand, but aside from those two things, I don't get much out of it that I couldn't get from Hulu.
I got rid of my cable service about a year ago and haven't regretted it. It seems to me there is a lot of room for cable companies to easily improve their service, yet IMO it remains consistently poor.<p>- On demand selections are limited, and the interface is usually pretty clunky. If I have a DVR, I have to remember in advance to record something, rather than being able to just grab it after the fact.<p>- You need to have a physical box, which either arrives outdated or quickly becomes outdated, and they never replace it.<p>- It costs $60-$70/month for decent cable service where I live, versus $8/month for Netflix. Combine that with Hulu and free on-demand streaming from major TV networks, and it's a great bargain.<p>The <i>only</i> thing I miss about having cable is being able to channel surf when I'm bored. Honestly, I am probably a more productive human being without wasting my time doing that, so I'm not too disappointed.
I'm not going to shed a tear. Cable companies had to know their business plans weren't going to work forever when pay-per-view movie rates started exceeding the cost of renting a DVD, or in some cases actually buying the DVD.<p>Now... about those pesky 5000% profit margin usage-based-billing rates...
I have a smart Sony BD player that lets me watch Crackle, Hulu Plus, Netflix and half a dozen other things. It upgrades automatically and adds new services every few months. (I believe most of these are available on the PS3 as well). I was on this crazy cable plan that had all the bells and whistles but I actually only watched 5 channels. When cable lets me subscribe on a channel by channel basis I <i>might</i> switch back. The only thing I missed is live sports but networks are broadcasting live web streams as well, so 'cut the cord' = 'more money in my pocket'.<p>Also, something to note was that I dint have TiVo or DVR and so could <i>almost</i> never watch shows on TV. Hulu for me is <i>free DVR</i> (unless they dont have my show which is rare).
The Internet and Cable companies here in Canada are already trying to circumvent the issue and bring back the sheep by capping regular internet plans in the same way you see with data plans on phones--Most companies allot 100gb (and then you pay huge sums if you go over) which isn't very much in today's world, so it's gotten to the point where I had to cancel my netflix (its inferior in Canada anyways) because by watching it regularly, I far exceeded my internet cap. It's gotten to the point where excessive streaming/downloading for entertainment is about on par with traditional cable in terms of costs.
Between OTA HDTV, Netflix, Redbox, and Hulu, I've been without cable TV for quite a few years now. Actually, I've been without a TV completely for the last year and frankly it's quite enjoyable. Just not having that TV as the focal point of the house is really nice, especially since I have a 1 year old to be a dad to.<p>Considering that digital cable is $50+ a month(not including internet), that's enough to buy new laptop or HDTV or iPad every year. Cable won't die, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are forced to eventually morph all of their offerings into a digital package like Netflix where you get Streaming TV + Internet for say $50. Right now I'm paying $35 for cable internet and $8 for Netflix, and a few dollars here and there for Redbox rentals, so $50 a month is just about right for what it <i>should</i> cost for cable companies to do that.
I've gone cable free for two years thanks largely in part to Netflix (and Xbox 360 for my ESPN3 stream). Cable was one thing that should have been getting cheaper over the years, but instead kept getting more expensive. Like Blockbuster before it, I don't think anyone will be too sorry for Comcast and the rest of their lot.
My wife and I have been experimenting with reducing the content that we buy from Directv. Directv is a great service, great content, but we watch so many streaming Netflix movies that Directv is less relevant. That said, we are scaling back on what we purchase from Directv, but definitely not canceling it.
We cut the cable three years ago. And in our community, no cable means no TV. It's probably not the much cheaper, to be honest. The big difference for us has been the cutting random channel-surfing and our family's exposure to loud, mentally corrosive cable TV advertising.
The day I can get NFL Sunday Ticket streaming to a set-top box (with a decent user experience, not a computer-hooked-to-a-TV one) is the day I'm finished with normal TV service.