Heads up if you get your cable tv through Breezeline

[David]

I have seen them out and about in St. Mary's installing a lot of fiber cable underground. That would be a plus if they're doing it to the neighborhood level.

Breezeline ain't gonna install fiber directly to anyone's house unless they pay dearly. Have a buddy who lives on a lane with 7 other people. No cable service. Metrocast wanted between $10-20K to install fiber back the lane and to each house. All but 1 agreed to split the bill. Then after installed, Metrocast wanted to install the non-payer for free, and the others said heck NO! Sure they did, because then they had another paid monthly subscriber.

When I built my house. SMECO trenched in their line and Verizon's TELCO. I asked them about the cable. They said the cable company refused to pay for it, even though it was much cheaper to do it then as opposed to coming back in later and blading it in themselves. They just want to pocket the profits and not invest in their infrastructure, IMO.

 

[stgislander]

Looks like I'll be needing a new TV.

 

[kom526]

Verizon FiOS is coming to Lexington Park and heading south.

 

[PrchJrkr]

I'll have to check out Mommy Dearest's TV to see if we can stream with it. For someone who worked their whole life in IT, I don't know crap about TVs. In the last 8 years I've forgotten more than I ever really knew about them.

 

[spr1975wshs]

I really "like" how there was no actual timeline included in the article.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I may be dense (in a recent poll, 54% of respondents said I was), but I don't understand their new business model. Assuming everyone who currently has cable also has Internet through them, at 2X the cost. Why would I not just can cancel the cable and use my existing internet and subscribe to the streaming services of my choice, like I do now? Seems like they're cutting off their own foot.

I gave DirecTV the boot several years ago after they kept increasing the price. That saved $120/mo. Now, my paid entertainment is Amazon Prime (which I would buy anyway because shipping costs basically pay for the Prime) and YouTube Premium for $13/mo. so I don't have to suffer through ads. I might pick up a premo channel like Paramount+ here and there for a month or two so I can watch Star Trek or 1923.

They will sell a streaming package, probably for the same cost as cable without being confined by the same rules.

 

[DoWhat]

Breezeline ain't gonna install fiber directly to anyone's house unless they pay dearly. Have a buddy who lives on a lane with 7 other people. No cable service.

I have fiber to my house, but it was back in the Metrocast time frame.
They were running it down Medley's Neck and hit some of the side streets.
Before they did that, we had no cable service. So we had DirectTV and used dial-up for internet.
Can't remember the year they did it.
We still use DirectTV for TV an Breezeline for internet.
DTV = $130/ month basic and Breeveline now is up to $80.
Sucks.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I have fiber to my house, but it was back in the Metrocast time frame.
They were running it down Medley's Neck and hit some of the side streets.
Before they did that, we had no cable service. So we had DirectTV and used dial-up for internet.
Can't remember the year they did it.
We still use DirectTV for TV an Breezeline for internet.
DTV = $130/ month basic and Breeveline now is up to $80.
Sucks.

I bet you could cut that TV bill in half or more with a streaming service.

 

[DoWhat]

I bet you could cut that TV bill in half or more with a streaming service.

You are correct.
I still don't know much about streaming and the wife likes what she currently has.
And I think we would need to buy new TV's. especially for my dog house.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

You are correct.
I still don't know much about streaming and the wife likes what she currently has.
And I think we would need to buy new TV's. especially for my dog house.

As long as you have an HDMI port you only have to buy a Roku or Fire Stick, as little as $25. The interfaces on "smart tvs" suck unless they are Roku TVs. I use one on a plasma I bought in 2005.

 

[PrchJrkr]

As long as you have an HDMI port you only have to buy a Roku or Fire Stick, as little as $25. The interfaces on "smart tvs" suck unless they are Roku TVs. I use one on a plasma I bought in 2005.

The $99 Insignia TV I bought from Best Buy to use as a monitor has HDMI. That's how its connected to my laptop. I may just buy another one of these.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

The $99 Insignia TV I bought from Best Buy to use as a monitor has HDMI. That's how its connected to my laptop. I may just buy another one of these.

FYI you can even use a computer monitor, but they dont have speakers so a bluetooth speaker can handle that.

I have a 27 inch QHD monitor with two HDMI inputs, I stuck a fire stick in one of those ports and now my computer monitor doubles as a TV in that room.

 

[stgislander]

As long as you have an HDMI port you only have to buy a Roku or Fire Stick, as little as $25. The interfaces on "smart tvs" suck unless they are Roku TVs. I use one on a plasma I bought in 2005.

Interesting. I assumed they plugged in to a USB port.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm not sure what speed Internet I am paying for already with Breezeline - but I can only imagine what the logjams will be like in my house.
I may have to UP my speed, since I depend on it for work.

On the other hand ----

Don't cable companies have this deal where they get to be a monopoly in a given geography? I presume, because any cable company would have to rely on existing cable lines?

Doesn't this basically break all that? If people are only getting Internet through their cable - and Breezeline is now nothing more than a streaming service ---

Why can't ANOTHER company come in and use those lines?

 

[HemiHauler]

I'm not sure what speed Internet I am paying for already with Breezeline - but I can only imagine what the logjams will be like in my house.
I may have to UP my speed, since I depend on it for work.

On the other hand ----

Don't cable companies have this deal where they get to be a monopoly in a given geography? I presume, because any cable company would have to rely on existing cable lines?

Doesn't this basically break all that? If people are only getting Internet through their cable - and Breezeline is now nothing more than a streaming service ---

Why can't ANOTHER company come in and use those lines?

Ah yes, the beauty of government-protected monopolies.

 

[SamSpade]

Ah yes, the beauty of government-protected monopolies.

Well, I get at least PART of it. The service relies on physical cable running all over the place - on poles, underground - and I get why you don't want every county torn to shreds for every new company. Secondly, it's not like a competing company is going to sink the cost if they have to share the customer base with others.

Same thing with most public utilities.

But again - wouldn't shifting to streaming pretty much mean - they're NOT a TV cable company service anymore?

 

[Ken King]

They will still be the "internet cable company", it isn't like they won't be using the cable.

 

[LightRoasted]

For your consideration ...

But again - wouldn't shifting to streaming pretty much mean - they're NOT a TV cable company service anymore?

Yup. And not being able to be price regulated. This being their way around of being price regulated.

As per the Calvert County Comcast Franchise Agreement: Are cable rates a part of the franchise agreement? No. Federal law holds that cable rate setting is deregulated. Local franchise agreements cannot set rate parameters.

They will still be the "internet cable company", it isn't like they won't be using the cable.

Nope. They will be just a data delivery service. Think of a simple CAT5 computer network cable on steroids.

 

[Ken King]

Nope. They will be just a data delivery service. Think of a simple CAT5 computer network cable on steroids.

No, they don't deliver, they provide the means of connectivity. Just like a road provides connectivity (the ability to easily traverse between locations as opposed to trekking through the wild). A road doesn't deliver anything, it is those using the road that deliver.

Dropping the cable TV service option and going to a streaming service just removes the need for the bandwidth that was occupied by the TV signal. It isn't like they are switching to wireless service and freeing up the cable for another's use.

 

[Sneakers]

I kind of joked about using an antenna. Having a transmission tower is mandated by the Feds, but it's expensive to maintain, has limited range, and I'm sure the FCC would love to use that bandwidth for up and coming high speed wireless networks. Wouldn't doubt there are factions trying to eliminate the requirement for transmission towers and antennas. After all, it's "free" to the consumer, and we can't have that now, can we?