The biggest difference is that people use the internet for far more things than just streaming, so the internet bill is diluted into the overall utility. For example, without good internet speeds you couldn't attend classes properly in lock down, nor attend meetings with people across the country or world.

Good internet is becoming more of an overall utility than just a luxury.

I've seen teachers and young students during covid, it wasn't pretty.

I have that feeling that internet is boiling frogs making people think it's that amazing christic thing when a few phone calls and organization would go as deep. Plus kids and teachers are often computer illiterate, a single file format can delay information for days if not weeks because people don't know how to mail or open something.

Fair point, I suppose that would be kinda like including the price of a TV onto the cable bill comparison, and then the computer on streaming, and etc etc.

I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but in Canada: the typical cost of basic cable service plus a couple of cable packages in 1990 cost roughly the same as basic internet service plus a streaming service today. It is difficult to even claim that this comparison is even remotely fair for a variety of reasons.

- The only major loss with the current system is local programming. You may be able to get it with free OTA channels, but people subscribed to basic cable in the 1980's and 1990's simply because cable was more reliable than a good residential antenna tower so it is justifiable to count this as a loss.

- The current system is much better in that you can watch commercial free programs when you please, any given streaming service is usually less expensive than any given cable bundle, and the content in any given streaming service will usually have more in common than the channels in any given cable bundle. (Cable companies were notorious for putting similar channels in different packages.) As an added bonus: the "watch when you please" aspect means that you can defer viewing, may that be to switch between streaming services to keep monthly costs down or to simply cancel during the months when you have better things to do than watch television.

- The current system is also better in that Internet service can replace many other products and services. Subscribing to newspapers is a novelty these days. If it wasn't for societal expectations, people would have dropped phone service since the Internet provides far better communications options than traditional landlines.

True, the edge case of "I want TV but not internet" users are not in a great place to access streaming content. They still have all their existing cable content, though, at least? And in 2001, good chance they were already paying for internet back then too.

I don't think it's realistic to assume "no internet" is a standard default these days, though, regardless of if/how you watch TV.

I'm the opposite. I want "internet but not TV". If you're in Comcast land, you'll pay for cable either way.

> I don't think it's realistic to assume "no internet" is a standard default these days

About 1 in 6 US households has no internet access, nowhere near a small enough number to start rolling up alternatives.

Not sure I understand. I pay Comcast for Internet but dropped both cable TV and landline a couple years ago and cut the bill in about half.

Do you have more details or a source on this? I'm wondering if the 1 in 6 is no centralized household internet, or no access whatsoever e.g. via a smartphone with a data plan.

The info I'm thinking of came from a Pew report that went around work, I'm not finding that on the public internet. There is this, which comes up with a similar number:

https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-united-states-...

That also claims:

"The number of mobile connections in the United States of America in January 2020 was equivalent to 107% of the total population."

I'm not sure how to disaggregate that to humans. I do personally have more than one device with a data plan, although I'm not sure how typical that is.

That's not my experience with decades of different Comcast subscriptions in one city.

It's not "no internet". It's "low bandwidth" internet. If it wasn't for streaming or downloading OS updates, would most people need fast internet?

What do you mean by low bandwidth? 56K dialup? 1.5Mbps DSL? 10Mbit?

Streaming only was able to take off because broadband (back then this wouldn't even have been that much, >~2Mbps) was already widespread. So I'd say yes, nobody liked waiting for slow connections.

Yes? HD video calls and backing up your personal media. Even an old person can benefit from high upload being able to do a remote doctor visit with an HD camera.

Most people working from home (or remote schooling, even occasionally) would need more than low bandwidth internet.

True, but the cost of that connection also covers plenty of non-watching, so it would be fairer to add only a portion. I suppose if you measured it by data transfer watching is likely a large chunk, but you wouldn't choose to go without any kind of connection, even if you weren't interested in streaming, unless you really couldn't afford it.

Huh, this is a good point actually. I was going to argue that people have internet anyways, but that's not always the case. My FIL would have to both lay an internet cable, pay for internet, and pay for streaming to switch.