Read story here
Yet another story, this time in the New York Post, about dropping cable tv for the internet.
Yet again, it's disappointing to see the story not mention any of the things you need to truly enjoy all the benefits of cable tv without cable tv (heck, you get more through the internet than you'd ever get with any cable package).
I was shocked to hear in the story of 20 somethings sitting around the dinner table watching tv on their laptop.
On your laptop?!!! Guys, what the heck are you doing? In the most basic of set ups at least hook your laptop up to the tv using an HDMI cable.
Another disappointment...yet again Netgear gets no mention - argh, come on guys, get the PR machine going.
Anyway, this article, as many others, references sites like Hulu and Netflix, which clearly tells you those two companies have their PR game-face on and are out there staying connected to reporters (because realistically neither Hulu or Netflix are the future of Internet-based television, although Netflix has a chance of doing ok over the next five years.. but 10 years out, forget about it.)
On a side note, I think I'm two months in to having no cable tv and I'm LOVING it! My internet/cable bill has gone from $130 to $55 a month and I haven't missed anything.
I could go to ADSL off a Bell reseller for probably $40 a month, but I've enjoyed Rogers customer service so I've kept my Internet business with them.
I'm surprised to see that articles such as these are not highlighting the massive shift that is going to happen in the near future. All you have to do is look at the basic annual cost associated with operating off the internet versus traditional services. For example, a typical set up for most people might look like the following:
Cellular - $40/month
Internet - $60/month
Cable tv - $75/ month
To get all the same services (often with more features), but running them off the internet.....
Cellular - $20/month (use Skype on the cellular and pay only data charges, while using your cellular identity for 911 connectivity)
Internet - $60/month (no change)
Cable tv - $0/month
Total = $85/month (and hey, if you went with ADSL your monthly total would only be $65/month versus $215/month through a traditional set up)
So basically people are paying $215/month when they could get the exact same thing for $85 (or even $65) a month.
Do the math and for 12 months you're looking at $2,580 versus $1,020 bucks (a $1,500 savings every year).
This is why the shift is inevitable. It's disappointing that reporters aren't getting this basic reality that the Internet is going to replace traditional services (and save people an absurd amount of money). And we're just talking tv and phone services... don't get me in to all the other traditional services it will disrupt.
Yet another story, this time in the New York Post, about dropping cable tv for the internet.
Yet again, it's disappointing to see the story not mention any of the things you need to truly enjoy all the benefits of cable tv without cable tv (heck, you get more through the internet than you'd ever get with any cable package).
I was shocked to hear in the story of 20 somethings sitting around the dinner table watching tv on their laptop.
On your laptop?!!! Guys, what the heck are you doing? In the most basic of set ups at least hook your laptop up to the tv using an HDMI cable.
Another disappointment...yet again Netgear gets no mention - argh, come on guys, get the PR machine going.
Anyway, this article, as many others, references sites like Hulu and Netflix, which clearly tells you those two companies have their PR game-face on and are out there staying connected to reporters (because realistically neither Hulu or Netflix are the future of Internet-based television, although Netflix has a chance of doing ok over the next five years.. but 10 years out, forget about it.)
On a side note, I think I'm two months in to having no cable tv and I'm LOVING it! My internet/cable bill has gone from $130 to $55 a month and I haven't missed anything.
I could go to ADSL off a Bell reseller for probably $40 a month, but I've enjoyed Rogers customer service so I've kept my Internet business with them.
I'm surprised to see that articles such as these are not highlighting the massive shift that is going to happen in the near future. All you have to do is look at the basic annual cost associated with operating off the internet versus traditional services. For example, a typical set up for most people might look like the following:
Traditional Set Up
Land-line Phone Bill - $40/monthCellular - $40/month
Internet - $60/month
Cable tv - $75/ month
total = $215/month
To get all the same services (often with more features), but running them off the internet.....
Internet Set Up (in the near future)
Land-line Phone bill - $5/month (skype)Cellular - $20/month (use Skype on the cellular and pay only data charges, while using your cellular identity for 911 connectivity)
Internet - $60/month (no change)
Cable tv - $0/month
Total = $85/month (and hey, if you went with ADSL your monthly total would only be $65/month versus $215/month through a traditional set up)
So basically people are paying $215/month when they could get the exact same thing for $85 (or even $65) a month.
Do the math and for 12 months you're looking at $2,580 versus $1,020 bucks (a $1,500 savings every year).
This is why the shift is inevitable. It's disappointing that reporters aren't getting this basic reality that the Internet is going to replace traditional services (and save people an absurd amount of money). And we're just talking tv and phone services... don't get me in to all the other traditional services it will disrupt.
Comments
Post a Comment