(01-27-2016 10:34 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cable/satellite is the new Blockbuster. The way people watch TV is changing every day especially for younger Gen Xers, Millennials and the generation after them. People watch shows either on demand or on a binge with live sports being the sole exception. Gone are the days you schedule your activities on a tv show. Can't watch Suits on Wednesday nights? No problem. You can download the newest episode on iTunes or Google Play on the same night or the next day and download the latest episode of The Americans while you're at it. That's how I watched Mad Men (didn't want to wait until it was on Netflix months later) when I ditched cable 3 years ago. What makes people think sports won't be next? It's coming people. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. I'll happily pay for a sports bundle of $25-$40 month if I get every sport channel out there including a rugby channel which is hard to get here and keep my Netflix/Hulu/Amazon and the occasional trip to Redbox. That would still save me more money than when I had DirecTV.

ESPN is not dumb. They see the writing in the wall. They're still the leader in sports and people will pay money for a package or as a stand alone option just to watch their favorite team (MLBtv is a good example). Disney/ESPN will get their money regardless. It's the smaller channels that don't stand a chance in an industry that's rapidly changing. Who ever thought show that was never on TV (House of Cards) was going to be nominated for an Emmy? Or who thought 10 years ago that you could watch your favorite show or movie on your phone or tablet. Who has a landline now? Or gets the newspaper delivered? Who will have cable in 2030?

So your whole argument against cable/sat is that people prefer on-demand showtimes?

You do realize that modern cable/sat boxes offer on-demand programming, right?


They provide both options: if you now exactly what you want to watch, go to the on-demand section, but if you aren't sure what you want to watch and just want to watch something, you have a list of channels.

Why is that a bad thing?

(01-28-2016 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 10:34 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cable/satellite is the new Blockbuster. The way people watch TV is changing every day especially for younger Gen Xers, Millennials and the generation after them. People watch shows either on demand or on a binge with live sports being the sole exception. Gone are the days you schedule your activities on a tv show. Can't watch Suits on Wednesday nights? No problem. You can download the newest episode on iTunes or Google Play on the same night or the next day and download the latest episode of The Americans while you're at it. That's how I watched Mad Men (didn't want to wait until it was on Netflix months later) when I ditched cable 3 years ago. What makes people think sports won't be next? It's coming people. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. I'll happily pay for a sports bundle of $25-$40 month if I get every sport channel out there including a rugby channel which is hard to get here and keep my Netflix/Hulu/Amazon and the occasional trip to Redbox. That would still save me more money than when I had DirecTV.

ESPN is not dumb. They see the writing in the wall. They're still the leader in sports and people will pay money for a package or as a stand alone option just to watch their favorite team (MLBtv is a good example). Disney/ESPN will get their money regardless. It's the smaller channels that don't stand a chance in an industry that's rapidly changing. Who ever thought show that was never on TV (House of Cards) was going to be nominated for an Emmy? Or who thought 10 years ago that you could watch your favorite show or movie on your phone or tablet. Who has a landline now? Or gets the newspaper delivered? Who will have cable in 2030?

So your whole argument against cable/sat is that people prefer on-demand showtimes?

You do realize that modern cable/sat boxes offer on-demand programming, right?


They provide both options: if you now exactly what you want to watch, go to the on-demand section, but if you aren't sure what you want to watch and just want to watch something, you have a list of channels.

Why is that a bad thing?

I would pay for the channels I want, even if it costs more.

I don't want to have to pay for channels that I don't want and will never watch, even if it saves me money.

I would pay for a subscription "Irish Channel", for instance,even if it were twenty or thirty bucks a month.

(If there were an ACC Network, I would reluctantly pay for it, but would not watch any non-ND ACC content.)

I don't want to be forced to pay .10/mo. for the Big Ten Channel or .90/mo. for the SEC Network (which helps the schools that compete with the school I root for and which I will never watch).

ESPN will survive and make its money (mores the pity) but I don't want to pay for a bunch of channels that I care nothing about and do not wish to subsidize.

I would rather pay more, not less, but have the choice and be able to choose what I do not want to pay for or subsidize.

(01-28-2016 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 10:34 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cable/satellite is the new Blockbuster. The way people watch TV is changing every day especially for younger Gen Xers, Millennials and the generation after them. People watch shows either on demand or on a binge with live sports being the sole exception. Gone are the days you schedule your activities on a tv show. Can't watch Suits on Wednesday nights? No problem. You can download the newest episode on iTunes or Google Play on the same night or the next day and download the latest episode of The Americans while you're at it. That's how I watched Mad Men (didn't want to wait until it was on Netflix months later) when I ditched cable 3 years ago. What makes people think sports won't be next? It's coming people. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. I'll happily pay for a sports bundle of $25-$40 month if I get every sport channel out there including a rugby channel which is hard to get here and keep my Netflix/Hulu/Amazon and the occasional trip to Redbox. That would still save me more money than when I had DirecTV.

ESPN is not dumb. They see the writing in the wall. They're still the leader in sports and people will pay money for a package or as a stand alone option just to watch their favorite team (MLBtv is a good example). Disney/ESPN will get their money regardless. It's the smaller channels that don't stand a chance in an industry that's rapidly changing. Who ever thought show that was never on TV (House of Cards) was going to be nominated for an Emmy? Or who thought 10 years ago that you could watch your favorite show or movie on your phone or tablet. Who has a landline now? Or gets the newspaper delivered? Who will have cable in 2030?

So your whole argument against cable/sat is that people prefer on-demand showtimes?

You do realize that modern cable/sat boxes offer on-demand programming, right?


They provide both options: if you now exactly what you want to watch, go to the on-demand section, but if you aren't sure what you want to watch and just want to watch something, you have a list of channels.

Why is that a bad thing?

Yes, they offer that but there's a reason why people are ditching cable. It's becoming an outdated model just like having a landline at home became one 15 years ago. I have nothing but good things to say about DirecTV, they were great and never had any issues with them. But I was paying almost $1k a year on something I rarely watched. I follow on average 4-5 shows a year. I usually pay for the whole season on iTunes or Google. Altogether that equals a whole monthly bill on cable. Even if I add Netflix, Hulu and the $99 annual fee on Amazon, I'm still saving half of what I paid on DirecTV in one year. I love watching Bill Maher and John Oliver. Guess what? They have most of their shows available on their official YouTube channels. So no HBO for me.

I never watched E! or Lifetime or HGTV or TLC and 90% of channels that were at my disposal. I never cared for them and I don't miss them so good riddance. I'm a fan of G5 school. My school is rarely on tv. There's no such a thing as a conference network. I accepted that reality years ago and it played a factor when I decided to ditch satellite. I don't even miss ESPN and the other sports channels. It's mostly jocks in suits and ties giving opinions and speculations. It's basically gossip for men or as a friend of mine calls them "The View with dicks" (literally and figuratevilly). You will have to pay me to watch that aberration called First Take.

your theory UTEP, is most of the "on demand" shows you speak of were initially licensed as ancillary income. It was extra. Now those services are having to pay face value, because it is cutting into their revenue streams. Netflix is priced WELL below market value, based on what they now pay for shows, in hopes to get you hooked. Their prices, and others such as HULU, etc, will skyrocket if they ever come remotely close to being primary content providers.

(01-28-2016 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  your theory UTEP, is most of the "on demand" shows you speak of were initially licensed as ancillary income. It was extra. Now those services are having to pay face value, because it is cutting into their revenue streams. Netflix is priced WELL below market value, based on what they now pay for shows, in hopes to get you hooked. Their prices, and others such as HULU, etc, will skyrocket if they ever come remotely close to being primary content providers.

Yep. Netflix is actually going to raise their prices about 25% in a month.

The man is going to get paid, no question about it. Content is king and those content creators will ensure they get paid if there is still a market for it.

(01-28-2016 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  your theory UTEP, is most of the "on demand" shows you speak of were initially licensed as ancillary income. It was extra. Now those services are having to pay face value, because it is cutting into their revenue streams. Netflix is priced WELL below market value, based on what they now pay for shows, in hopes to get you hooked. Their prices, and others such as HULU, etc, will skyrocket if they ever come remotely close to being primary content providers.

I'll be more than happy to pay more for Netflix :-)

I pay $8.65 per month after taxes (same for Hulu). I know those prices are unsustainable for long term growth especially since they're producing their own shows.

adcorbett, since you're knowledgeable about this stuff, where do you see the cable industry in the next 5, 10, 20 years? Will they adapt like companies of the past? I can see Comcast and Time Warner surviving and become sole internet providers just like Sprint went from offering just long distance plans to a cell phone carrier. Will they consolidate like the airline industry where we went from 7 legacy carriers at the beginning of this century to just 3 today (plus Southwest).

(01-28-2016 11:00 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 10:34 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cable/satellite is the new Blockbuster. The way people watch TV is changing every day especially for younger Gen Xers, Millennials and the generation after them. People watch shows either on demand or on a binge with live sports being the sole exception. Gone are the days you schedule your activities on a tv show. Can't watch Suits on Wednesday nights? No problem. You can download the newest episode on iTunes or Google Play on the same night or the next day and download the latest episode of The Americans while you're at it. That's how I watched Mad Men (didn't want to wait until it was on Netflix months later) when I ditched cable 3 years ago. What makes people think sports won't be next? It's coming people. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. I'll happily pay for a sports bundle of $25-$40 month if I get every sport channel out there including a rugby channel which is hard to get here and keep my Netflix/Hulu/Amazon and the occasional trip to Redbox. That would still save me more money than when I had DirecTV.

ESPN is not dumb. They see the writing in the wall. They're still the leader in sports and people will pay money for a package or as a stand alone option just to watch their favorite team (MLBtv is a good example). Disney/ESPN will get their money regardless. It's the smaller channels that don't stand a chance in an industry that's rapidly changing. Who ever thought show that was never on TV (House of Cards) was going to be nominated for an Emmy? Or who thought 10 years ago that you could watch your favorite show or movie on your phone or tablet. Who has a landline now? Or gets the newspaper delivered? Who will have cable in 2030?

So your whole argument against cable/sat is that people prefer on-demand showtimes?

You do realize that modern cable/sat boxes offer on-demand programming, right?


They provide both options: if you now exactly what you want to watch, go to the on-demand section, but if you aren't sure what you want to watch and just want to watch something, you have a list of channels.

Why is that a bad thing?

I would pay for the channels I want, even if it costs more.

I don't want to have to pay for channels that I don't want and will never watch, even if it saves me money.

I would pay for a subscription "Irish Channel", for instance,even if it were twenty or thirty bucks a month.

(If there were an ACC Network, I would reluctantly pay for it, but would not watch any non-ND ACC content.)

I don't want to be forced to pay .10/mo. for the Big Ten Channel or .90/mo. for the SEC Network (which helps the schools that compete with the school I root for and which I will never watch).

ESPN will survive and make its money (mores the pity) but I don't want to pay for a bunch of channels that I care nothing about and do not wish to subsidize.

I would rather pay more, not less, but have the choice and be able to choose what I do not want to pay for or subsidize.

And some people think they shouldn't have to pay taxes for roads they don't drive on.

Too bad. That's not how it works.

It's more economical to limit consumer options to bundles.

(01-28-2016 11:00 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 10:34 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cable/satellite is the new Blockbuster. The way people watch TV is changing every day especially for younger Gen Xers, Millennials and the generation after them. People watch shows either on demand or on a binge with live sports being the sole exception. Gone are the days you schedule your activities on a tv show. Can't watch Suits on Wednesday nights? No problem. You can download the newest episode on iTunes or Google Play on the same night or the next day and download the latest episode of The Americans while you're at it. That's how I watched Mad Men (didn't want to wait until it was on Netflix months later) when I ditched cable 3 years ago. What makes people think sports won't be next? It's coming people. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. I'll happily pay for a sports bundle of $25-$40 month if I get every sport channel out there including a rugby channel which is hard to get here and keep my Netflix/Hulu/Amazon and the occasional trip to Redbox. That would still save me more money than when I had DirecTV.

ESPN is not dumb. They see the writing in the wall. They're still the leader in sports and people will pay money for a package or as a stand alone option just to watch their favorite team (MLBtv is a good example). Disney/ESPN will get their money regardless. It's the smaller channels that don't stand a chance in an industry that's rapidly changing. Who ever thought show that was never on TV (House of Cards) was going to be nominated for an Emmy? Or who thought 10 years ago that you could watch your favorite show or movie on your phone or tablet. Who has a landline now? Or gets the newspaper delivered? Who will have cable in 2030?

So your whole argument against cable/sat is that people prefer on-demand showtimes?

You do realize that modern cable/sat boxes offer on-demand programming, right?


They provide both options: if you now exactly what you want to watch, go to the on-demand section, but if you aren't sure what you want to watch and just want to watch something, you have a list of channels.

Why is that a bad thing?

I would pay for the channels I want, even if it costs more.

I don't want to have to pay for channels that I don't want and will never watch, even if it saves me money.

I would pay for a subscription "Irish Channel", for instance,even if it were twenty or thirty bucks a month.

(If there were an ACC Network, I would reluctantly pay for it, but would not watch any non-ND ACC content.)

I don't want to be forced to pay .10/mo. for the Big Ten Channel or .90/mo. for the SEC Network (which helps the schools that compete with the school I root for and which I will never watch).

ESPN will survive and make its money (mores the pity) but I don't want to pay for a bunch of channels that I care nothing about and do not wish to subsidize.

I would rather pay more, not less, but have the choice and be able to choose what I do not want to pay for or subsidize.

When the rates were negotiated, your demographic was taken into account. You are only paying for the channels that you want (the rest are just there), and you are not supporting the SEC/B1G. It only looks like you are on paper.

(01-28-2016 03:30 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  your theory UTEP, is most of the "on demand" shows you speak of were initially licensed as ancillary income. It was extra. Now those services are having to pay face value, because it is cutting into their revenue streams. Netflix is priced WELL below market value, based on what they now pay for shows, in hopes to get you hooked. Their prices, and others such as HULU, etc, will skyrocket if they ever come remotely close to being primary content providers.

Yep. Netflix is actually going to raise their prices about 25% in a month.

The man is going to get paid, no question about it. Content is king and those content creators will ensure they get paid if there is still a market for it.

Which, of course, there is. People love watching great content, and do so, now more than ever.

(01-28-2016 01:09 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 10:34 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cable/satellite is the new Blockbuster. The way people watch TV is changing every day especially for younger Gen Xers, Millennials and the generation after them. People watch shows either on demand or on a binge with live sports being the sole exception. Gone are the days you schedule your activities on a tv show. Can't watch Suits on Wednesday nights? No problem. You can download the newest episode on iTunes or Google Play on the same night or the next day and download the latest episode of The Americans while you're at it. That's how I watched Mad Men (didn't want to wait until it was on Netflix months later) when I ditched cable 3 years ago. What makes people think sports won't be next? It's coming people. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. I'll happily pay for a sports bundle of $25-$40 month if I get every sport channel out there including a rugby channel which is hard to get here and keep my Netflix/Hulu/Amazon and the occasional trip to Redbox. That would still save me more money than when I had DirecTV.

ESPN is not dumb. They see the writing in the wall. They're still the leader in sports and people will pay money for a package or as a stand alone option just to watch their favorite team (MLBtv is a good example). Disney/ESPN will get their money regardless. It's the smaller channels that don't stand a chance in an industry that's rapidly changing. Who ever thought show that was never on TV (House of Cards) was going to be nominated for an Emmy? Or who thought 10 years ago that you could watch your favorite show or movie on your phone or tablet. Who has a landline now? Or gets the newspaper delivered? Who will have cable in 2030?

So your whole argument against cable/sat is that people prefer on-demand showtimes?

You do realize that modern cable/sat boxes offer on-demand programming, right?


They provide both options: if you now exactly what you want to watch, go to the on-demand section, but if you aren't sure what you want to watch and just want to watch something, you have a list of channels.

Why is that a bad thing?

Yes, they offer that but there's a reason why people are ditching cable. It's becoming an outdated model just like having a landline at home became one 15 years ago. I have nothing but good things to say about DirecTV, they were great and never had any issues with them. But I was paying almost $1k a year on something I rarely watched. I follow on average 4-5 shows a year. I usually pay for the whole season on iTunes or Google. Altogether that equals a whole monthly bill on cable. Even if I add Netflix, Hulu and the $99 annual fee on Amazon, I'm still saving half of what I paid on DirecTV in one year. I love watching Bill Maher and John Oliver. Guess what? They have most of their shows available on their official YouTube channels. So no HBO for me.

I never watched E! or Lifetime or HGTV or TLC and 90% of channels that were at my disposal. I never cared for them and I don't miss them so good riddance. I'm a fan of G5 school. My school is rarely on tv. There's no such a thing as a conference network. I accepted that reality years ago and it played a factor when I decided to ditch satellite. I don't even miss ESPN and the other sports channels. It's mostly jocks in suits and ties giving opinions and speculations. It's basically gossip for men or as a friend of mine calls them "The View with dicks" (literally and figuratevilly). You will have to pay me to watch that aberration called First Take.

But you still watch plenty of TV, of course. As you said, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. Which are artificially low price, because not enough people have switched, as you have. Enjoy it, for now.

(01-28-2016 04:45 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  adcorbett, since you're knowledgeable about this stuff, where do you see the cable industry in the next 5, 10, 20 years? Will they adapt like companies of the past? I can see Comcast and Time Warner surviving and become sole internet providers just like Sprint went from offering just long distance plans to a cell phone carrier. Will they consolidate like the airline industry where we went from 7 legacy carriers at the beginning of this century to just 3 today (plus Southwest).

I can't answer that question, other than to say that I'd bet my money on the same companies/providers who are making money now, will make the same or more in any new environment. Much like any evolution, there will always be at least one victim, one very large player now will not survive. But the rest will, and one will take their place.

If I had to guess, I would say it still will look far more like it does now, then the image many have for full over the top, ala carte models. For one, with current technology, over the top models as a primary stream are a big waste of available infrastructure, compared to cable/satellite delivery. Obviously technology can change that, but as of now, that is not the case. I think mass media models are always needed, and even if an ala carte world existed, it would just give more power to those who still have the masses. But I think once people realize that ala carte pricing, DOES NOT mean the cost of channels at wholesale are given to individuals, and that retail prices are ten times what we pay now, AND that the so called pricey channels they are trying to avoid will still be there, while the cheap lesser channels are the ones that will die, will change the thirst for such a revolution. But that is just me.

That's one great point: can you imagine if all the data flowing on cable/sat proprietary networks was instead internet traffic ??

Yikes.

The wireless spectrum is getting increasingly crowded, but ironically, there's plenty of capacity in cable and fiber. Cable companies will still be able to sell the bandwidth even if they aren't selling the content. There has been some speculation that the remaining broadcast TV spectrum may get legislated away (we've already lost channels 14, 37, and 52-83; any channel branding itself as one of those channel numbers is physically broadcasting on a different channel and using PSIP to display its "old" channel number); I personally think that's 20-30 years away, and there's always a possibility it may not happen if pay-TV services lose subscribers due to some economic event or other new technology.

(01-29-2016 02:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 04:45 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  adcorbett, since you're knowledgeable about this stuff, where do you see the cable industry in the next 5, 10, 20 years? Will they adapt like companies of the past? I can see Comcast and Time Warner surviving and become sole internet providers just like Sprint went from offering just long distance plans to a cell phone carrier. Will they consolidate like the airline industry where we went from 7 legacy carriers at the beginning of this century to just 3 today (plus Southwest).

I can't answer that question, other than to say that I'd bet my money on the same companies/providers who are making money now, will make the same or more in any new environment. Much like any evolution, there will always be at least one victim, one very large player now will not survive. But the rest will, and one will take their place.

There are a number of battles being waged by the consumer.

1) Cable TV subscriptions vs. Internet TV.
2) Data over DSL vs. Wireless Carries.
3) Paid Data vs. Public Wifi

The game by the wireless companies is to get you to buy their data for multiple devices to the point where you are spending $150. New Smartphone, 20 GB of data, tablet and mobile internet device.

The game by the Cable companies is to get you into multiple package subscriptions to the point where you are paying $150. TV, Internet w/ LAN phone and home security add-ons.

An average cable/TV package with ESPN is going to run 100 dollars a month. A wireless subscription on Verizon, AT&T, Sprint with an a new iPhone 6/S6 + 10 dollar a month device insurance + FCC fees and taxes runs about 100 dollars.

The minimum that can probably be done between home entertainment and mobile needs is about 100 dollars. If you're doing under 150 dollars you are doing pretty good.

(01-30-2016 02:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 02:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 04:45 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  adcorbett, since you're knowledgeable about this stuff, where do you see the cable industry in the next 5, 10, 20 years? Will they adapt like companies of the past? I can see Comcast and Time Warner surviving and become sole internet providers just like Sprint went from offering just long distance plans to a cell phone carrier. Will they consolidate like the airline industry where we went from 7 legacy carriers at the beginning of this century to just 3 today (plus Southwest).

I can't answer that question, other than to say that I'd bet my money on the same companies/providers who are making money now, will make the same or more in any new environment. Much like any evolution, there will always be at least one victim, one very large player now will not survive. But the rest will, and one will take their place.

There are a number of battles being waged by the consumer.

1) Cable TV subscriptions vs. Internet TV.
2) Data over DSL vs. Wireless Carries.
3) Paid Data vs. Public Wifi

The game by the wireless companies is to get you to buy their data for multiple devices to the point where you are spending $150. New Smartphone, 20 GB of data, tablet and mobile internet device.

The game by the Cable companies is to get you into multiple package subscriptions to the point where you are paying $150. TV, Internet w/ LAN phone and home security add-ons.

An average cable/TV package with ESPN is going to run 100 dollars a month. A wireless subscription on Verizon, AT&T, Sprint with an a new iPhone 6/S6 + 10 dollar a month device insurance + FCC fees and taxes runs about 100 dollars.

The minimum that can probably be done between home entertainment and mobile needs is about 100 dollars. If you're doing under 150 dollars you are doing pretty good.

That's why I think people are vastly overstating the long term landscape of cable cord cutting. Cable delivers internet as well as cable TV, so they are in a prime position to deal with future alternative delivery methods. Additionally, there is a large segment of people who aren't going to ever cut the cord (mostly older people).

The reality is that the cable industry will get to a la carte pricing without the government forcing it on them (which was long thought to be the way it would happen). Instead, a la carte will be driven by the market place. By offering a la carte cable bundled with internet, the cable companies will do just fine, the customer will get the size of bill he wants buying just what he needs/wants, and the networks with content the end user desires will thrive (while those networks who don't have must see content will fade away).

At the conference level, I think you will see contracts that are based on actual eyeballs delivered and individual streams/downloads. This could actually help the G5 as their price per eyeball has always been les than the P5. I see no reason why the value of any college educated/higher income audience from a G5 would be any more/less valuable than the same set of P5 eyeballs. If you are paying a per eyeball rate, there would likely be a tightening of that G5/P5 media pay disparity that is more in line with the actual difference in audience size.

Funny that you claim ala carte will be driven by the marketplace, when it in fact minimizes revenue.

Bundles maximize revenue, hence why they've been the standard for decades and will continue to be the standard.

The delivery method is changing from cable to streaming. ESPN and others will adjust. At $20 per month ESPN only needs 1/3 of the existing cable subscribers to make the same revenue.

Infrastructure is rapidly being upgraded (at least around my area). Comcast recently announced they are testing a modem that will allow 1gb speeds.

FWIW, moving from cable to Internet does NOT mean the end of bundles. There are plenty of long existing web-based bundles.

(01-30-2016 06:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  FWIW, moving from cable to Internet does NOT mean the end of bundles. There are plenty of long existing web-based bundles.

You wouldn't know it reading these forums.