[Volscio]

People have been writing stuff like this for like 20 years now, ever since the internet became viable for a future of streaming video.

But cable TV has continued on strong. If anything I feel like, despite cable-cutters, the vast majority of people out there still regularly consume cable TV in one form or another. Perhaps what's changed is that the "golden age of TV content" right now feels more like the movie industry, in that big cable networks release big TV series and market them heavily almost as if you were going to the theater to watch a blockbuster movie.

The online streaming services actually seem diluted now, while cable networks have very strong brands; I don't really have netflix but my wife and I have ondemand and a dvr through time warner and 3 different devices to watch amazon through. The fobs you can get from google and amazon and whomever else will continue to dilute that access to streaming (which is good for competition and for DIYers at some point, I suppose)

But really the battle is about whether cable TV will continue to be an always-on service, and in that regard I think it will. Just flip on your TV, which you may have in several rooms in your house, or at your favorite sports bars, or in the office lobby, or wherever. It can be background, it can be a social experience for live sporting events (probably the most compelling reason for keeping cable), etc.

The other component is that video games are now more compelling to play/watch, and in fact a lot of youtube and twitch channels are now regularly consumed by viewers.

I would argue that the "disruption" already happened a long time ago but the cable networks and service providers have adjusted and assimilated to various degrees, such that we now have tons of avenues for stuff to watch.

Maybe this just takes some perspective to see because I feel like people keep predicting cable TV will just die or something, and that seems like such a naive way of looking at the world.

[TarpitCarnivore]

The disruption of cable TV wont happen, at least in the US, until major sports leagues start allowing their content to be viewed online without blackout restrictions. The MLB and NHL are probably the most forward thinking here, but the NFL will never give up on this. They get paid billions every year from just TV deals alone.[1][2] A new network in LA just paid $7BN to be the exclusive provider of Dodgers games. [3]

And this is so obvious when you look at cable packages that put certain sport networks in upper tiers, or charge a premium to get something more specialized like SEC Network.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/nfl-completes-...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-exten...

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/dodgers-tv-deal-tim...

[chrisgd]

I would agree. Plus a lot of organizations are tying your ability to watch something on your phone / tablet to your login with your cable company. I couldn't watch March Madness without logging in through xfinity. Additionally, the SEC network won't let you watch unless you are already a subscriber to Dish.

[TarpitCarnivore]

I'd expect that most of the crowd here knows how to circumvent blackouts, but the issue is you still don't get access to the major network channels. No MLB Network, NFL Network, etc. These stations may not matter to some, but a lot of people probably enjoy having a station dedicated to their favorite sport. Additionally if you're a motorsport fan, as I am of F1, you have no choice but to get cable.

[avn2109]

A guy in my lab loves F1 and he claims to get same-day HD torrents of races/qualifiers/etc. Every time I look over at his desk, I am impressed by how non-bootlegged they look.

[adestefan]

Live sports is the only reason why I still have cable.

[mathattack]

It will happen at some point. Just because an idea is a long time coming, doesn't mean it's wrong. People talked about mobile devices for a long time, then one day it happened. Same with speech and handwriting recognition.

The other bit is most people hate their cable company. (Me too!) Anything to get around that monopoly...

[sizzle]

From what I've observed, the older, less technologically inclined generations struggle with quickly adapting to new technologies and appreciate the tried and true method of picking up the remote and clicking on a traditional cable/dish set top box and knowing it will "just work".

Hell, I have to constantly reteach my parents which buttons do what on a remote control, let alone navigating submenus. I think that when the millennial generation takes over, a larger majority of the population will understand technology better simply because they grew up understanding certain tech/UX paradigms that the older generations never needed to.

[prostoalex]

Frequently getting a TV + Internet bundle is cheaper than getting just a single Internet service, at least for "limited time" that could run into 2 years.

[giantrobothead]

I purchase a phone/cable/internet bundle from my provider and the price has held steady for the six years I've had it. In fact, the only increases have been when we've added services, like more HD channels, on-demand, etc.

Of course, the fact that they have a virtual monopoly on the cable TV business in my town probably has a lot to do with their pricing stability. The only competition they have is a satellite provider, and calling them "competition" is being a bit generous.