Do I need a multicast?

I blame the FCC for screwing things up.. years ago they had a must carry law, meaning cable companies had to have off-air channels on the cable tv lineup. now, they allow the off-air channels to charge the cable companies. cost to offer video service have gone so high that cable companies only make a few cents per subscriber and fees for video go up every time they need to renew the contract.
I've seen and continue to see cable companies drop video altogether and just offer data services. the cost for a meta switch and equipment for voice is too high. you can get a simple magic jack and port your number over. no liabilities if the customer can't make a 911 call.
9/10 new installations are data only. customers don't want to pay for video when there's allot out there for free. Hulu with commercial free is my favorite.
need for speed.. that's what I feel will be the future. with the cost of 4k tv's so cheap, everyone wants to see video at 4k. so my old HD TV that used about 4Mb, now is around 15Mb with 4k.
come Christmas, they will have 8k TV's and when content is available, will use around 30Mb. the NFL has been recording games in 8K for a few years. it's a matter of time before they offer games online.

if your doing 8 or 16 channel bonding, I would look to increase it 32 channel bonding and docsis 3.1 with new higher speed packages.
video is dying and data services will be the only way to stay in business.
that's my two cents worth

We had multicast linear TV for about 5 years. It was a secondary bonding group that was "spanned" across multiple mac-domains to DOCSIS 3.0 modems. It actually worked pretty well.

But once Netflix launched here in 2015, unicast video instantly became the major traffic type on our network. We decided there was no point keeping the complexity of multicast when we were pumping tons of extra capacity into the network anyway to cope with Netflix/Youtube etc. So we switched the in-house video to unicast as well.