Slashdot Mirror


One In Eight To Cut Cable and Satellite TV In 2010

r0k3t writes "It looks like people are finally getting sick of overpriced, ad-infested cable and satellite TV. I had predicted that by 2005 we would mostly be using the net for video — seems like I was a few years off. From the article: 'A cutting-the-cord trend has been the subject of speculation for some time, as networks have increasingly made television programming available for free on the Internet. But a combination of other factors, including a growing number of battles between cable companies and networks, soaring Internet video viewings, and an increase in connected TVs and devices, suggest the trend is finally upon us. ... The biggest reason why customers will cut the cord, according to the study, is the growing cost of pay-TV service. Cable and satellite viewers pay an average of $71 per month, and they receive an average annual price hike of 5%, according to research firm Centris.'" How many of you have made the switch to Internet-only TV, or are considering it? Any regrets?

11 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. by CrackedButter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I gave up TV in 2003. Just use BBC iPlayer for the Doctor Who episodes now. Everything else is a combination of iTunes rentals, torrents and podcasts.

    1. Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. by u38cg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same. I moved in with my partner in early 2004 and being poor and in love, we couldn't afford a TV and found other ways (ahem) to spend our time. We've never got round to buying one. We did inherit one when we moved into our current place, and I'm glad it's there, because when the next 9/11 hits, the internet will be a dead zone (it was bad enough last time). Useful to know I can still get BBC One if I have to.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. by mickwd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Similar here. Don't watch much TV "live" at all, but iPlayer is great for many of the things I do want to see.

      Seems like television is one of those things where too much competition is not necessarily a good thing. More channels means fewer and fewer viewers per channel, which means less money from advertisers, which means less money spent on programs. We're lucky we have the BBC to still produce some quality programs (with no adverts!), but it's got a unique funding method which seems to be coming under more and more fire.

      I swear TV programs were better when there were only 4 channels (with the advertising pennies split between only 2 channels). And without Sky to pay big money for films, the terrestrial ("free") channels would get them more cheaply, too.

      Now we have dozens, if not hundreds, of channels, most of which are complete crap, most of the time (for all its good stuff, the BBC makes a lot of rubbish too).

      Not to mention what's going to happen to football in this country (soccer for you US-ians) when Murdoch pulls the plug on funding the Premier League, because he's already got all the viewers he needs.....

    3. Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. by ericlondaits · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and have cut cable TV last year... I got rid of my TV set as well.

      For a while now I've been using torrents for all my TV viewing needs, even programs available to me in cable. Once my girlfriend cut down her TV watching as well I proposed getting rid of cable and we agreed on removing the TV set as well since my 24'' widescreen LCD computer monitor is up to the task.

      My main reasons for watching torrents: ability to watch the programs as soon as they are available and without the normal geographical delay (blame it on Lost, American Idol, and the like), and the possibility of watching at any time of the day (TVR never really caught in Argentina).

      To any TV execs reading this: If TV channels gave me all the quality and convenience torrent does (automatically downloaded HD video with no DRM) I'd have no problem watching "official" videos with commercials in them... or even paying a very small amount for them (we have a weak currency in Argentina so even one dollar per episode is borderline steep).

      --
      As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
    4. Re:Some of us were waaaaay ahead it seems. by ehrichweiss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been dying for the BBC to open up the iPlayer to non-UK countries. I'm more than willing to pay a few bucks to have access to the shows I like(Doctor Who, IT Crowd, etc) but if they don't, I'll continue to do as I've been doing most of this time...downloading it and watching it. NO, I won't wait 2 weeks while BBCAmerica gets the episodes. Are ya listening BBC? I just told you that I'm willing to pay you some $$$ for access to your shows. Get your shit together!!

      That said, we haven't had satellite in our house in over a year at this point and we don't watch any broadcast TV so most of what we watch comes from online viewing. With the prices of satellite being what they are and cable being as limited as it is in our area, unless the satellite companies start giving it away for free in exchange for us watching the ads(that they give us now even though we already pay), we'll be using the Net for most of our entertainment.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  2. 47" HDTV, no cable, no blue ray discs by RichMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There just is not the content out there worth paying the amounts they want.
    The price set exceeds my demand.

    Also 99% of it is crap.

    Off the air for what I can get if it fits my time. Really don't even watch stuff off the net.

  3. I have been disconnected for about 4 1/2 years. by Aldenissin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sure, I miss not getting shows that friends talk about at work, but I have other ways. And with Hulu and Netflix, I rely on those other ways less and less, if at all. I want to pay for my content, but not everyone else's. Watching the fiasco's with Disney and ESPN (among others over the years), I was glad that I wasn't involved and getting suckered.

      For me, it began over watching the Discovery Science channel. It was channel 101 and suddenly just out of my lineup range. I had been trying to explain to my father (who lived with me) science concepts, as he was opening up more and showing interest. The TV shows's imagery and hosts could often explain things better than I could, and I might learn something new as well. My free trial was over, and so I called Adelphia (now Comcast) up. They said that not only would I have to forsake my special rate of something like $35 for the next 6 months (I think I had it for a year total) I would have to pay for digital cable and also the first additional digital package. So, for 1 channel they wanted me to almost triple my bill to $95. My next words were, "Cut it off."

      Unfortunately I still am dealing with them over Internet service, but maybe in time things will get better.

    --
    Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
  4. For many many areas, this makes no sense by RobertM1968 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "It looks like people are finally getting sick of overpriced, ad-infested cable and satellite TV. I had predicted that by 2005 we would mostly be using the net for video — seems like I was a few years off. From the article: 'A cutting-the-cord trend has been the subject of speculation for some time, as networks have increasingly made television programming available for free on the Internet.

    So... why would I (or numerous others in similar situations) do this when we can get high speed Internet for $30 a month IF we spend another $30 on cable?

    So, honestly, I could drop cable (and thus Internet) and then spend more than $60 a month to get Internet (of a similar speed) from someplace else? See why this article doesnt make sense? Nowadays with the cable/Internet bundling prices, people would simply revert to basic cable (ie: no HBO, SHO, etc) and keep their cheap-yet-decent-speed Internet.

    After all, without that decent/high speed Internet connection, one cannot watch "online TV" - and for many that means keeping cable as well (and for a growing number, it means keeping Verizon's equivalent or paying a lot more for just Internet).

    Now, as far as satellite goes... sure... I could see a bunch dropping that. My brother got satellite for a while... but it meant he had to pay extra to get Internet from someplace else, so, even though satellite at least offered more channels and somewhat better quality on a bunch, overall it wasnt worth it when getting a comparable Internet connection to the previous cable one (28Mb/7Mb) would cost quite a bunch. So, out went the satellite, back in went the cable.

  5. You can't get Internet over an antenna by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But then how do you get that Internet access? If you cut your cable, you can't easily get cable Internet, and if you switch to a cell phone, you can't easily get DSL. Well, you can, but they charge you a "line fee" equal to the price of limited basic TV or basic telephone service. Nor can you get a video-grade Internet connection over the air. And if you try to get your Internet access by tethering your PC to your cell phone, the 5 GB per month cap will ensure that the only Netflix service you get is DVDs by mail, not Watch Instantly.

  6. Screw TV by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At the risk of being "That Guy", I don't have a TV and I don't really have any plans of getting one. My old roommate just moved out, and the cable was in his name. I just ordered service (currently, I'm leaching Wifi... sucks), which despite the fact I have gear and am already wired, apparently they have to send someone to me or some crap. Point is, despite the fact they really wanted to bundle me TV and digital phone service (I have a cell phone, why do I need a 'land line', especially if it'll go down if the power is out?), I had no reason to bite.

    I think that as younger generations come up and are the ones making these types of purchasing decisions, it's going to be more and more common to just "do without" "old people" entertainment. The few things I want on cable, I can get on Hulu, or on southparkstudios.com the day after the episode was on TV. I use the internet to keep in touch with my friends that don't live near by, group coordinate stuff with those who do, get my the news that I don't get off of NPR in the car, obtain my software updates, work on personal projects, and sometimes work from home. I don't really need TV and I don't want it. Hell, I think if my parents' generation realized that they can get the weather on the internet without having to weight until "the eights", they'd probably ditch cable, too.

    Of course, that means that the service providers aren't going to let "network neutrality" ever happen, aren't going to stop doing stuff like DNS hijacking if they can get away with it, and advertisers are going to continue polluting the tubes. Why? 'Cause they have to make up the revenue somehow, and if we're not watching TV, they'll move to where we are.

  7. Look at the cost this way... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the cost of cable or satellite for a year ($70 * 12) = $840, you can afford to buy season sets of about ten series, assuming $80 per set, which is a high assumption; season sets frequently sell for a lot less.

    And you get to keep it afterwards, and the quality is better than what you get on TV and without commercials.

    So yeah, I canceled cable and haven't looked back. If you're willing to bend the law you can also get torrents if you want instant gratification. What the heck is the point of cable/satellite, unless you like sports?

    I'm sure many fellow geeks who couldn't care less about sports feel the same way.