Will the internet completely kill cable one day?

>>59346749
Probably not. Cable will always be faster than WiFi.

>>59346749
I'm sure there area lots of people who're already working on reducing cable clutter.

A wired network will always be more secure than a wireless.

but the internet runs on cable

>>59346786
>>59348212

Do you guys speak English?

>>59346749
It already has.

>>59346749
cable was fated to die the moment we achieved high-speed internet.
it'll probably take a while before it get phased out completely though.

>>59349845
Que habla español?

>>59346749
The death of cable started awhile ago. Streaming offers people better selection at a better price.

>>59346749

the big money from cable will, and likely already is, transitioning to the internet. No way powerful groups will allow something this sweet to go untapped.

>>59346786
It's already irrelevant for the top percentile of internet users (I dunno the exact numbers, but I'd guess somewhere between the top 1-5%, since there's still so many people on dsl n shit).

Cable will just become internet streaming, we're already seeing it happen and most cable providers offer streams of most of their recorded content, and most live content is streamable online too. Once cable companies realize that cable boxes and paying technicians to set them up is basically a waste of money (for the cable companies), and that going to a website and putting in a username/password is way cheaper and require way less resources, traditional cable will die very quickly

>>59346749
in the UK most people haven't even arrived at cable

>>59346749
I don't think so, wifi and cellular networks have higher latency and lower bandwidth compared to hardwired optical cables.

>>59346786
>>59348212
op meant cable tv, he could have expressed himself better

>>59346749
The average age of cable news viewer is around 60, I can't imagine it's much less for tv shows since younger generations are much more comfortable with online streaming services, cable will die out when their audience does

>>59346749
Yes and it should. Cable providers are absolute jews when it comes to packages and it's better to use online services then cable at this point.

Yes but it's going to cost as much or more than cable.

File: 1489248317611.png (8KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 650x650px

>>59346749
nah. I have Cox and was gonna cancel tv so i can hook up Vue, but they offered me everything in Vue + HBO and Cinemax for 35.99 a month for the next 2 years without a contract.

YouTube TV coming

>>59350669
Streaming performance for 4K and 8K videos is utter shit on WiFi.

>>59351009
He clearly mentioned cable. What is wrong with you?

>>59350628
But high speed internet still depends on copper and fiber-optic cables.

>>59351291
No, they're not. It's cheaper if you buy 100 metres and crimp them yourself as needed.

>>59350810
Sure, WiFi is more convenient but cables are have lower latency, is more secure, and can carry data across much longer distances.

I just don't see cables being phased out anytime soon.

File: Da1.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

Cable is already dead.