cmcdar wrote:
^^^^^^ Not sure what all that means BUT
I was paying $80. per month for Direct TV.
I dropped Direct TV, bought a ROKU box and now pay $7.99 per month for Netflix.
Sounds like a good deal to me. If the above rant was an attempt to say that the more people that cut the cord, the worst reception for all...
I say, if people are making money, ie Netflix, Amazon, THEY will figure out a way to make it last.
Basically stating that the OP is in the dreamland that since Cable co's have dropped analog channels that they put over the cable that will allow for vast increases in "bandwidth" for more streaming options on the cable co's INTERNET STREAMING CAPACITY.
You need to understand how the cable co works to fully understand the folly in that thinking.
Cable co uses ONE "HEAD END" for a given service area where ALL the "programming" on that cable is originated.. The more data traffic (as in cable customers) that are connected the less bandwidth there is for ALL customers.
That one Head End design becomes a huge bottle neck for INTERNET ACCESS.
Wired Telcos do have some advantage with how they are set up for Internet..
Instead of ONE "Head end" they have THOUSANDS of switching stations in a given area.. Each customers line goes back to a switching station.. That switching station has a bigger pipeline allowing each customer to enjoy full speed without other customers affecting each other..
As far as competition lowering costs, nope, not going to happen.. Hasn't worked, never will work..
Streaming is a two way street (double the traffic bandwidth than broadcasting), broadcasting is a one way street (which takes less bandwidth than streaming).
Going "wireless" has similar issues like a Cable co, there is only so much bandwidth in traffic on the cell frequencies available.. The more customers you have in a given area the less bandwidth they will be able to get.. Sometimes slowing access to a crawl (which is why many cell co's put data caps in place or throttle down your speed).
Can't have your cake and eat it to.
