Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.

What Will Replace the Cable Box: a Better Box Or No Box at All?

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @12:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the cord-cutters-unite! dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

The cable box, a crucial part of home theaters for decades, might be on the way out. Casual TV watchers say it's easier to find something to watch through online services such as Netflix and Hulu than it is to flip through hundreds of channels in hopes of finding something interesting. Other viewers complain that the boxes are poorly programmed and difficult to use. Even Congress doesn't particularly like the cable box: Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) recently decried the high cost most customers pay to rent one from their provider.

Cable companies are of two minds about this trend. Some, such as Comcast, are trying to find ways to make cable boxes better. Instead of ugly units with clumsy remote controls, they're scrambling to produce sleeker boxes loaded with software that makes it easier to get straight to TV shows and movies.

Are the cable companies missing the forest for the trees?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
What Will Replace the Cable Box: a Better Box Or No Box at All? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 45 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:16AM

    by Francis (5544) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:16AM (#261046)

    Because you're forced to decide between watching something live and being unable to skip commercials like you used to or you get to skip commercials, but have to watch after the fact.

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:41AM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:41AM (#261076) Journal

    The reason I gave up broadcast/cable was commercials, but streaming on demand does not prevent commercials at all. Example, youtube. So I'm not clear why on-demand streaming is not really on these companies' radars.

    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday November 10 2015, @08:35PM

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 10 2015, @08:35PM (#261420) Homepage Journal

      Perhaps because individual streaming to 10000 active customers takes 10000 data channels whereas sending 200 channels to everyone just takes 300.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 10 2015, @09:03PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @09:03PM (#261429) Journal

        And Netflix manages to do this for far less charge, so what is wrong with cable companies?