OT: netflix profit up 56%; paradigm shift now fully underway...

[Plan Ahaed]

I"m a cord cutter and love that the trend is growing. BUT I don't think we'll ever get to the point the cable is long gone even with the younger generation coming along due to the technological hurdles necessary to consume media via the streaming options. You need an understanding of wireless networks / internet speeds / roku/fire/apple tv etc. to go the streaming route. When we have roughly 20% of the population in the US reading below a 5th grade level, and a sizeable segment of the population with no understanding of the technological hurdles necessary I believe that there will always be a large chunk of people who find it easier to just call and sign up with the cable company.

You also have significant areas of the country still with no access to high speed internet needed to make streaming a possibility.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

In the 1980's, long distance calling on your land line was 20-25 cents per minute. Then in the 1990's competition occurred and dropped it down to 5 cents per minute. Now long distance is the same cost as calling your neighbor and is a flat monthly rate no matter how many minutes are used. Look at a cell phone bill from 2000-2005 and then look at one now. Look at the cost of that per the data that you get. That cost has come down dramatically and will continue to come down as more cheap players continue to move into that space and more towers continue to get put up. It is only time before "5G" is here. 4GLTE doesn't cost anymore than 2G speed cost back in the day. Speed gets faster but cost stays the same or goes down and that will continue. There will be a time in the not to distance future where there will be wireless unlimited data plans for a set monthly rate that is affordable to the masses. How long will that take. 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? it is coming.

Sure, cell phone bills were greater back then but you're missing my point.

Data caps in their various forms will be a huge hindrance to having cell-based WiFi in a home. VZW, for example, finally axed grandfathered unlimited data users who use more than a certain GB and significantly raised prices for others.

T-Mobile has unlimited data but throttles your WiFi hotspot after 5GB. Additionally, you can't get HD video even with unlimited data on your cell.

There's such limited competition among cell providers that there's no incentive for any to significantly reduce prices or increase data caps. Netflix, for example, uses 3GB per hour to stream HD content.

Let's take that a step further. The average 18-34 year old consumed an estimated 85 hours of digital media in November 2015. Bandwidth caps for cell service north of 200GB without costing a fortune are so far off that you can't quantify it. Hell, for 2 smartphones and 4GB of data coupled with a steep discount, I'm paying VZW north of $100 per month.

 

[Sharkies]

Hell, for 2 smartphones and 4GB of data coupled with a steep discount, I'm paying VZW north of $100 per month.

You're overpaying then, brutha.

 

[Plan Ahaed]

You're overpaying then, brutha.

Could you give suggestions of how to get something similar for under $100 b/c I'm in the same situation as Oracle - 2 phones, data, & discount over $100.

I was with sprint years ago but after being promised 4g for 4 years and them never upgrading the area I finally had to ditch them and go to verizon.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

You're overpaying then, brutha.

No, I'm not.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I agree with almost everything you have said except the part about the quality of Netflix productions.

Most of them are garbage. It's the ability to binge watch that makes them viewable and exciting.

The few that I watched were so/so yet being able to watch 8 episodes over a couple of days made it enjoyable. I doubt I would go out of my way to watch any of them like I do the Simpsons.

LdN

couldn't disagree more

and the reason Netflix makes "better" shows is that they are not beholden to the advertiser's demands (and loopy public demands). Their business model, because they are a subscription service, is to hire talent and get the f**k out of their way.

there are a lot of good shows on network TV ("Black-ish" is a continual delight) but many I watch because they are procedurals I have watched for years.

There is a glut of "ad space savers" and reality TV shows, which pander to the lowest common denominator. and I cannot tell you how many GREAT shows (ahem "Constantine") have been killed because of mis management from on high.

now let me catch up on Narcos, Longmire, The Ranch, Sense8, The Get Down, The Fall . . .

 

[Cletus11]

Sure, cell phone bills were greater back then but you're missing my point.

Data caps in their various forms will be a huge hindrance to having cell-based WiFi in a home. VZW, for example, finally axed grandfathered unlimited data users who use more than a certain GB and significantly raised prices for others.

T-Mobile has unlimited data but throttles your WiFi hotspot after 5GB. Additionally, you can't get HD video even with unlimited data on your cell.

There's such limited competition among cell providers that there's no incentive for any to significantly reduce prices or increase data caps. Netflix, for example, uses 3GB per hour to stream HD content.

Let's take that a step further. The average 18-34 year old consumed an estimated 85 hours of digital media in November 2015. Bandwidth caps for cell service north of 200GB without costing a fortune are so far off that you can't quantify it. Hell, for 2 smartphones and 4GB of data coupled with a steep discount, I'm paying VZW north of $100 per month.

Iphone was introduced only 10 years ago. It took 30 seconds just to load a single webpage. I can now stream HiDef live TV on my phone if I want. The speed of cell based WIFI 10 years ago was orders of magnitude less than today.

Go back 22 years and Microsoft was introducing Window's 95 to the world and you had to upgrade your computer to 8 MB of RAM to run it. RAM on a computer was everything. I don't even know what RAM computers have now because nobody cares because RAM doesn't limit anything.

So in 22 years, the computer industry has gotten to the point that the average consumer who buys a computer has more computing power in it than they could ever use in a lifetime. We have seen in the past 10 years cell based WIFI grow in similiar exponential way to what RAM did with computers. You don't think in another 10 years that cell based wifi (or some technology that replaces it) is not going to be exponentially faster than it is today.

 

[tboyer]

Yeah, not a fan at all of Verizon/AT&T, only pointing out that for light users of internet, it can be cheaper to just run your home internet off your cell phone. I.e. instead of paying $70 to Comcast for internet and $100 for your phone, spend $120 and tether your internet off your phone. I actually have a colleague who does this for his home office internet -- and the Verizon LTE connection is plenty fast for his purposes -- he writes and tests software so obviously he needs a fast reliable connection.

I mention Verizon and AT&T only because their frequencies usually do better indoors than T-Mo and certainly Sprint. Obviously using cellular isn't going to be economical if you're streaming video every night. But if you're not, 10 gigs of cell bandwidth can go a long way.

Comcast is aware of this threat and there are rumors that Comcast is going to partner with T-mo to offer an European-style "quadruple play" -- TV, Internet, house phone and cell phone in a package deal. This is common in Europe and incredibly economical -- people get all four for around 100 Euro a month.

tboyer, I generally agree with you on this type of stuff, but cheap bandwidth, AT&T, and Verizon belong in the same sentence just as often as "Ira Lubert" and "good ethics".

Cell phone companies are horribly expensive for data, much moreso than Comcast or any local cable company.

 

[tboyer]

Hell, for 2 smartphones and 4GB of data coupled with a steep discount, I'm paying VZW north of $100 per month.

If that includes the cost of, say, payments on new iPhones at $27/month each, that's not a bad deal.

If your phones are paid off, then you can do better. Check out Cricket Wireless -- they're a subsidiary of AT&T and run off the AT&T network, full LTE, very good network. Two lines, 3 gigs of data each is going to run you $65. And if you run out of data, they don't charge you, they just reduce you to 3G speed. We've been very happy with them.

 

[Cletus11]

Honest question...what is limiting 7G (making that up) but essentially cell based speed equal to standard in home based wireless router speed? Is it the amount of towers available, ie...just hardware? Is it some part of the technology?

 

[Hugh Manatee]

I had a old IT friend that told me about an effort many years ago to develop technology to deliver phone, cable and internet through the existing electrical grid. Does anyone know anything about this? He was saying that the bandwidth capacity would be off the charts. The challenge is that the electrical current is AC and that adaptive tech would have to figure out how to cancel the interference from AC oscillation. I'm not a techie, so I don't know if I characterized this properly. Feel free to correct me.

You can definitely do this. There are devices that plug into wall sockets that can synchronize with each other and become a network path, called Powerline adapters. Very simple to use.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

If that includes the cost of, say, payments on new iPhones at $27/month each, that's not a bad deal.

If your phones are paid off, then you can do better. Check out Cricket Wireless -- they're a subsidiary of AT&T and run off the AT&T network, full LTE, very good network. Two lines, 3 gigs of data each is going to run you $65. And if you run out of data, they don't charge you, they just reduce you to 3G speed. We've been very happy with them.

It doesn't include the cost for two phones. One is owned and the other got a $400 tradein subsidy.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Yeah, not a fan at all of Verizon/AT&T, only pointing out that for light users of internet, it can be cheaper to just run your home internet off your cell phone. I.e. instead of paying $70 to Comcast for internet and $100 for your phone, spend $120 and tether your internet off your phone. I actually have a colleague who does this for his home office internet -- and the Verizon LTE connection is plenty fast for his purposes -- he writes and tests software so obviously he needs a fast reliable connection.

I mention Verizon and AT&T only because their frequencies usually do better indoors than T-Mo and certainly Sprint. Obviously using cellular isn't going to be economical if you're streaming video every night. But if you're not, 10 gigs of cell bandwidth can go a long way.

Comcast is aware of this threat and there are rumors that Comcast is going to partner with T-mo to offer an European-style "quadruple play" -- TV, Internet, house phone and cell phone in a package deal. This is common in Europe and incredibly economical -- people get all four for around 100 Euro a month.

I'll bet your friend isn't streaming hours of HD video without paying a boatload of money, though.

Note: Not trying to argue, just playing devil's advocate.

 

[PSUSignore]

If your phones are paid off, then you can do better.

Project Fi is worth looking at as well, but has limitations on phones you can use. However Google is using a no nonsense billing strategy that I love (only pay for exactly the amount of data you use), and it includes some international data usage benefits at no charge. Essentially their service uses a combination of wifi, Sprint, T Mobile and US Cellular towers in the US. I don't use it, but am strongly considering it.

 

[tboyer]

Project Fi is worth looking at as well, but has limitations on phones you can use. However Google is using a no nonsense billing strategy that I love (only pay for exactly the amount of data you use), and it includes some international data usage benefits at no charge. Essentially their service uses a combination of wifi, Sprint, T Mobile and US Cellular towers in the US. I don't use it, but am strongly considering it.

I have used Fi on vacations -- it works overseas so it's not a bad deal vs. buying a European sim card.

But I wouldn't recommend it otherwise. It's just not cheap enough given the drawbacks.

1) it's built on T-mo and Sprint, so the network is nowhere near the quality of AT&T or Verizon. For many people it's fine but in small towns and rural areas, service will be spotty.
2) their data is actually quite expensive at $10 a gig. 1 gig a month plus Fi service is $30 -- not cheap. Cricket for $35/3GB is a better value if you use data and you care about network coverage. If you don't use any data, $20 is a pretty good price I guess but there are other low cost options. If you use a lot of data Fi will cost you more than Verizon.
3) If you have a Google voice number and you subscribe to Fi, they automatically use your Google Voice number for your cell phone. If you cancel Fi, you lose the number (or that's what I've heard) -- no going back to Google Voice. You can pick a different number but you still lose your Google Voice number. Just kind of weird as Google can be weird.
4) Fi only works with Google phones. If you have a Nexus or a Pixel, great.