Peak Cable looms: One in five US homes now mobile-only for internet

Does not compute

We being told we all need super fast broadband while 1/5th of Americans elect to go mobile only with monthly data caps which would last 10 minutes at super fast speeds.

Wonder what figures in the UK are like? For light internet users I can see the attraction in getting rid of the extortionate openreach line rental.

Might be me, but I suspect that it has less to do with liking wireless and more to do with despising local broadband monopolies in the states.

Downunder

Meanwhile in the land of the antipodes it s unlikely that people will be able to switch entirely to mobile internet while the telcos charge exorbitant rates for mobile data. Let me see you keep up to date with the live NRL or AFL matches on a 10Gb per month plan (extra data available for $10 per Gb).

Poor people have poor choices

I think it's easy to see how many poorer people will shift to mobile data exclusively. The shift to smartphones is nearly universal and having a phone is important to live in today's society. It's cheaper to up ones data plan on the phone than to have a phone bill AND an internet/TV bill.

For consumers, a digital life that is all wireless and mobile devices will work. As a creator, I need the bandwidth that cable can provide and a real keyboard and mouse. There are many more consumers than creators so it's unsurprising that wired internet providers may see their subscriber numbers drop. The same holds for satellite internet providers. It's wireless, but the kit would be unwieldy to move around.

If TV moves from SD/HD to 4k, cellular wireless won't be able to cope with the load. I'm surprised to see people streaming HD content to their 6" screen thinking it a waste of bandwidth. At some point wireless companies may need to rein in their data allowances once again to keep from having to deploy many more towers in larger cities where the cost to lease the space will get stupid really fast.

Cable companies may have to start going ala carte. While ESPN may be demanding $6/subscriber now, there is no way that they can raise that to $20/subscriber. They will have to figure out a way to survive at $1-$2 with fewer viewers or lose out to an organization that can. Lots of channels will die, but I don't see that as a bad thing. There used to be some really good stuff on the telly, but now it seems most of those channels have gone to cheap-to-produce reality shows that are all just a crowd of pinheads shouting obscenities at each other. Cooking shows have gone to bizarre extremes too where there is less cooking and more forcing the other chef to try and cook with their pans cut in half or other obstacle. Allowing customers to choose the channels that are most important to them will let the market place vote on what's important and what's not.

It will always be possible to push more data down a wire than over the air. It's also more secure to be wired.

Mobile at least gives you a choice

As someone living in the rural US, I can tell you the reason several of my neighbors have gone mobile only: Choice. There is only 1 internet service provider and out here, the speeds are 1/3 the advertised price at the best of times. For the same amount per month, most folks can go with a data only package and so long as they keep streams to SD, pretty much make it through the month without additional charges. If they switch off to providers with a high speed allocation and a low speed unlimited throttle, then they are fine enough to continue watching cat videos and checking emails to their hearts content. Truthfully, if I didn't need at least a semi stable connection to remote into work, I'd probably do something similar given that physical line's quality has not ever been resolved but the price has gone up twice.

It's because US broadband sucks

In the US it may make sense to switch from wired broadband to mobile, because the cost of wired Internet is so high, and/or the speeds so low in comparison of what we are used to in Europe that it makes sense. The average American would drool at the speed and price of broadband that is available to 70% of the population of (e.g.) Romania.

It's what happens when you are "first". You get the crappy early technology while latecomers start from scratch with more mature technology. America were the first to introduce nationwide colour TV, and ended up having to suffer NTSC for the following decades while most of the rest of the World used PAL or SECAM.