[rayiner]

The opposite is true. Video service enables companies to charge enough to justify broadband deployment. That’s why Google and Verizon offer video over their fiber service even though they don’t really have their own content. Verizon won’t expand FiOS into Baltimore because it can’t get a television franchise from the city without agreeing to onerous build-out requirements. Without video revenues FiOS isn’t really viable.

[creato]

Google Fiber charged $70/mo for internet, and $130/mo for cable TV [1]. Standalone TV streaming services are also around $50/mo (e.g. hulu [2], youtube live TV packages [3]).

Something doesn't add up. If it costs $50/mo to get cable TV content, why does it cost me $-10/mo with comcast?

1. https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2016/04/11/googl...

2. https://www.hulu.com/live-tv

3. https://tv.youtube.com

[_bxg1]

That may have been true at one point, but cable is on its last leg now. And streaming services (for now) go over all networks.