(08-15-2016 10:53 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 03:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I was just talking about the TV portion.
Guy was saying he saved $2500 a year just in TV. That's $208/mo savings just in TV, on top of whatever he now pays for streaming TV services. I mean, how is that not absurd?

I was multitasking. I misspoke. Actual savings is about 1900 a year. What I was paying was close to 2500. And it's not a fad. Fads don't
Landline phone is cheap/irrelevant. And you need internet to get streaming TV anyway, so that cost isn't going away.


last years. What some people don't get is that people under 25 years of age do not watch TV in a traditional sense at all. There is no such thing as must see TV. When these currently 16 year olds turn 30 cable TV as we know it will be non existent. The Netflix original series model will be prevalent. In a marketplace with a lot of competitors and with viewers showing a take it or leave it indifferent attitude to content you're not going to be able to charge premium rates. I just saw that the new Star Trek series will be on CBS' streaming channel only. The future is now.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I think the 25 may be too young. I know very few people any longer who have regular CATV or Satellite and most of my circle of friends is over 40. Why? Simple, cost and the ability to control what you watch.

The times are changing and I don't think MplsBison is going to be happy with those changes. Soon it will no longer be about the provider (CATV/Satellite) as much as it will be about the content providers. Once the content providers take over the traditional CATV model is dead.